If you put your religious book away for a moment.

[Spirit of Light]

You actually know JWs here personally! That's great!

I know a few JW in norway personally not the JW in RF

 

[The Hammer]

Many of us have no choice, as a lot of religions don't actually have holy books. Mine hasn't.

FYI, this post reminded me that I saw this book at the store the other day you might like.

 

[nPeace]

The meaning behind this is that if we read the scripture and dont ask our self "what does it actually means" but only say " i believe it with no questions asked" to me that is blind faith.

It may mean something else to others of course

If you read a scripture without trying to understand it, are you blindly relying on scripture, or your own understanding? Seems to me the latter. I don't understand how it can be the former, since to rely on scripture mean to have scriptural support, and therefore two or three scriptures must support each other - which involves more than reading, but rather involves study.

So, blindly and relying on scripture evidently cannot be put in one sentence. They can't mesh, or go together.
Blindly believing, is what many do, but believing what? Scripture? That's not possible.
What one understands from scripture, is through study. Even if they misunderstand something, it's not blind. They are trying to understand. Isn't that so?

 

[Neuropteron]

Often in discussions, debates or other parts of RF one can experience that some people qoute from the chosen religious teaching they believe in. Whereas others often speak freely from their belief without the need of qoutes from religious teachings.

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use qoutes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

Would you feel unsure about your own ability to have deep understanding of the teaching without the need for qoutes?
Or would you feel ok in a discussion without the scripture to back up your own understanding?

That depends.
For instance if a person claims to be a follower of Christ and spouts his own wisdom and ideas is he not only fooling himself?
However, If a person is wiser than God, in that case, I agree he wouldn't need to consider his word.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That depends.
For instance if a person claims to be a follower of Christ and spouts his own wisdom and ideas is he not only fooling himself?
However, If a person is wiser than God, in that case, I agree he wouldn't need to consider his word.

If his wisdom is align with christ, then he wouldn't need the bible, no?

Why would one feel they are wiser than god when speaking from the holy spirit without scripture as concordance?

 

[Clara Tea]

Often in discussions, debates or other parts of RF one can experience that some people quote from the chosen religious teaching they believe in. Whereas others often speak freely from their belief without the need of quotes from religious teachings.

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use quotes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

Would you feel unsure about your own ability to have deep understanding of the teaching without the need for quotes?
Or would you feel ok in a discussion without the scripture to back up your own understanding?

Three blind men describe an elephant: 1. tree trunk (leg), 2. hose (nose), 3. rope (tail).

Each has a partial understanding of the whole.

If everyone collided their partial understanding of religion, there would be a lot of disagreement, a lot of discussion, a lot of proofs offered.

It is possible that many people from many different religions could talk about the same topic and find that their limited understanding is merely a part of the whole understanding. They may come to believe that one needs to set aside pride in one's own religion, and accept that other religions might have something right as well.

Perhaps this is what God had intended when he split the world up at the Tower of Babel, sending different languages, different skin colors, and different religions to the far corners of the world, with the idea that some day they will grow up and mature and overcome their petty differences to accept all humans as God's children (just as God does)?

Using quotations allows us to get the most accurate information, and a source to look it up.

Science could try to get along on "people's understanding" rather than verifiable proof from reliable sources, but that is certainly not acceptable in science today.

There is usually just one right idea in science (2+2=4) and a million ways to get it wrong (2+2=4.34). This is why it is better to quote the right answer and the place where the right answer was derived.

 

[Sundance]

We Stoics do have a few surviving texts from major figures (e.g. Cleanthes’s Hymn To Zeus, Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, The Enchiridion of Epictetus, and Seneca’s Moral Letters), but they’re sort of more akin to high school or college course textbooks or instruction manuals than holy texts. Though, the Stoic writings reflect their authors, who were quite sincerely religious, so in a very real way, there is a certain kind of sacredness to them. With this said, I feel perfectly comfortable with expressing my own thoughts and opinions on religious topics.

 

[sayak83]

Often in discussions, debates or other parts of RF one can experience that some people qoute from the chosen religious teaching they believe in. Whereas others often speak freely from their belief without the need of qoutes from religious teachings.

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use qoutes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

Would you feel unsure about your own ability to have deep understanding of the teaching without the need for qoutes?
Or would you feel ok in a discussion without the scripture to back up your own understanding?

I would feel completely comfortable. I rarely quote scriptures unless the thread topic is about one or somebody is asking. But part of the reason also is scriptures of some religions are widely available on the net in English making it easier to look up and quote.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you read a scripture without trying to understand it, are you blindly relying on scripture, or your own understanding? Seems to me the latter. I don't understand how it can be the former, since to rely on scripture mean to have scriptural support, and therefore two or three scriptures must support each other - which involves more than reading, but rather involves study.

So, blindly and relying on scripture evidently cannot be put in one sentence. They can't mesh, or go together.
Blindly believing, is what many do, but believing what? Scripture? That's not possible.
What one understands from scripture, is through study. Even if they misunderstand something, it's not blind. They are trying to understand. Isn't that so?

If a person say " in my understanding" before explaining what the bible say, than it means they have studied the scripture but use their one words to describe the meaning of the words

 

[Neuropteron]

If his wisdom is align with christ, then he wouldn't need the bible, no?

Why would one feel they are wiser than god when speaking from the holy spirit without scripture as concordance?

The reason aren't that difficult to understand. Simply claiming to speak from God does not make it true .

Jesus himself read directly from the "scroll"(though not always, sometimes he made direct quotations), he said "I do not do a single thing of my own initiative." , what he did not do was to promote his own ideas

The Bible warns us sufficiently about the false prophets, and from those saying Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name?
Jesus answered them "get away from me you workers of lawlessness" .How would we recognize them without comparing their views with the Bible?

The Bible does not list a photographic memory of the scriptures as proof or a fruit-age of God's spirit.
In actual fact statements like "...we don't need the Bible" because of above average IQ, is actually a good example of why we do need it. Otherwise we could easily be mislead and believe these teachings.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Often in discussions, debates or other parts of RF one can experience that some people qoute from the chosen religious teaching they believe in. Whereas others often speak freely from their belief without the need of qoutes from religious teachings.

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use qoutes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

Would you feel unsure about your own ability to have deep understanding of the teaching without the need for qoutes?
Or would you feel ok in a discussion without the scripture to back up your own understanding?

Great question. Three things I would like to point out with regards to quotes.

1. I will often use a quote where it says exactly what I want to say and I can’t say it any better.

2. Other times I will use a quote where I cannot find words adequate enough to express my feelings. For instance a deep spiritual experience I had is mentioned in my scriptures - how it will happen when the true seeker finds truth. I found that to describe what happened to me I had to use that quote because it described exactly what happened and how it happened.

3. Lastly, but truly first and above all is that the power of the Word of God unlocks the cities of men’s hearts and can convey to them the truth far better than paraphrasing or men’s words.

 

[Vinayaka]

3. Lastly, but truly first and above all is that the power of the Word of God unlocks the cities of men’s hearts and can convey to them the truth far better than paraphrasing or men’s words.

Just because you think it's God's word certainly doesn't mean others think that. This is your opinion, sure. But myself and others often see your 'God's word' as a load of nonsense.

 

[Secret Chief]

Often in discussions, debates or other parts of RF one can experience that some people qoute from the chosen religious teaching they believe in. Whereas others often speak freely from their belief without the need of qoutes from religious teachings.

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use qoutes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

Would you feel unsure about your own ability to have deep understanding of the teaching without the need for qoutes?
Or would you feel ok in a discussion without the scripture to back up your own understanding?

"Anyone can use tinterweb to mine for quotes and regurgitate them. It means nothing. Your life lived is what matters, not mouthing litanies. So much of this forum is taken up with ******* contests, using quotes from texts as ammunition."

- MN 27 Culahatthipadopama Sutta, I 175-184.

 

[MatthewA]

Am not sure if can post this here or not in this thread.

But this video is 7 minutes long and it talks about ; Testimony, of transformation, and encouragement.

Inter-faith video involving Christianity. ~ Check the bible against what is said by me though; I could be wrong and make mistakes!

This is my best explaining what happens when it comes to reading the New Testament, along with having a few teachers in my life, along with ups and downs, and what happens as continued to grow in knowledge of God and Jesus also; a look at a book called : Bible Overview which you can buy from www.hendricksonrose.com

 

[loverofhumanity]

Just because you think it's God's word certainly doesn't mean others think that. This is your opinion, sure. But myself and others often see your 'God's word' as a load of nonsense.

It depends on the individual with these things.

 

[nPeace]

If a person say " in my understanding" before explaining what the bible say, than it means they have studied the scripture but use their one words to describe the meaning of the words

In my understanding of what text X says... I think that is what you mean? For to say, "In my understanding", does not mean, they have studied any thing in particular. They may have heard it from someone, and is just repeating what they think to be accurate. Not so?

 

[Spirit of Light]

In my understanding of what text X says... I think that is what you mean? For to say, "In my understanding", does not mean, they have studied any thing in particular. They may have heard it from someone, and is just repeating what they think to be accurate. Not so?

To not miss use Gods words, it is better to say " in my understanding" then one do not miss use Gods words

 

[nPeace]

To not miss use Gods words, it is better to say " in my understanding" then one do not miss use Gods words

In my understanding of what I have been told.
In my understanding of what I read in scripture.
Is there a difference between the two?
Which is better, in your opinion, and why?

 

[Thief]

Question: How do you feel if you would not be allowed to use qoutes but only your own words and understanding to discuss a religious topic? In this kind of discussion it would be best if one used the phrase "in my understanding" before one answer the question.

yeah.....and I often ask.....

WHO?....told you that
and WHY?......did you believe it

 

[Vinayaka]

It depends on the individual with these things.

Yes, and some individuals have a habit of stating their belief as fact. Others don't.