Unrelenting quoting of scripture.

[Jainarayan]

What do you mean 'Auspicious' to you ? Is it like saying its pretty?

More like favorable, blessings, good luck, of benefit... e.g. an auspicious day to start a business or voyage.

 

[exchemist]

I see posts that are just scripture, with very little or no personal comment attached. Of what value is this in an interfaith discussion.if any? If it's two people from different faiths, it's like exchanging two books.

Personally, I rarely, if ever read it.

Do you read it?

Reminds me a story my mother told, of a rather stuck-up evangelical group she knew at Oxford, who were in the habit of showing off their biblical knowledge by quoting just the chapter and verse numbers at each other, on the basis that everyone knew the bible so well they would know the text, just from the references.

However this went pear-shaped when one member of the group got married. Someone sent a congratulatory telegram but the reference got a bit garbled and came out as "John 4:18", which reads:

"Thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband."

Cue red faces and embarrassment all round........

 

[Brickjectivity]

More like favorable, blessings, good luck, of benefit... e.g. an auspicious day to start a business or voyage.

So it is about as important as a four leaf clover? Its not important and mostly decorative? It would, for example, not give one extra prowess in battle or provide a tank with extra accuracy?

 

[sayak83]

So it is about as important as a four leaf clover? Its not important and mostly decorative? It would, for example, not give one extra prowess in battle or provide a tank with extra accuracy?

It may provide the mind with extra calmness which leads to extra accuracy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is nice and reminds me of Bob Dylan's 'Forever Young' song, but is this on equal footing with a song? What I am getting to is trying to determine the importance of the words and of the symbol in your life.

What do you mean 'Auspicious' to you ? Is it like saying its pretty?

I am human, and I am an 'advaitist' Hindu. So, which answer do you want? Absolute truth or pragmatic truth? At the level of absolute truth, I do not accept the existence of any second. I am the Universe. There is no you. You too are me. At the level of pragmatic truth, I am partial to India, to Hinduism, but I do not want any harm to those who have done no harm to me.

Auspicious means 'holy', 'sacred'.

Its not important and mostly decorative? It would, for example, not give one extra prowess in battle or provide a tank with extra accuracy?

Never heard of an auspicious war or duel. War is a dirty business. It is said that In Mahabharata war 18 divisions (Akshauhini) of soldiers and their leaders were killed, and only a handful survived. Depends on what a person means by it. Hindus would not utter 'Swasti' or 'Shiva' (another word meaning auspicious) lightly.

 

[Jainarayan]

So it is about as important as a four leaf clover? Its not important and mostly decorative? It would, for example, not give one extra prowess in battle or provide a tank with extra accuracy?

More than that. For example, the name (actually an adjective) Shiva means 'auspicious', because he is. He bestows favors and blessings. The battle and tank example might apply also. Something could be favorable for success and victory... maybe the moon phase, star alignment, some kind of omen.

 

[Jainarayan]

I see posts that are just scripture, with very little or no personal comment attached. Of what value is this in an interfaith discussion.if any? If it's two people from different faiths, it's like exchanging two books.

Personally, I rarely, if ever read it.

Do you read it?

No. I wouldn't read something unless I were specifically interested in it or asked about it. If someone handed me a copy of the Quran and said "read this", I probably would not. Not because I have anything against it, I'm just not interested. If I wanted to read it I would read it on my own.

I think only once or twice I quoted more than a few verses from the Bhagavad Gita at one time. Ordinarily it's just a verse or two to back up some point I'm trying to make relative to my beliefs, or answer a question or someone's curiosity. A wall of text from BG serves no purpose except to come off as proselytizing and/or alienating people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Rarely read WHAT?

How can someone discuss Christianity without reading the scripture, you know, to see what Jesus said, and so on.

There is a style that would be beneficial for scripture posting.

1. Does the other understand it?
Not all of us take ministry classes and a lot of us aren't interested in Hebrew history

2. Add commentary. Scripture does not speak for itself. It doesn't give nonbelievers (NB) spontaneous spiritual knowledge. Its very self centered to even think that.

4. Read what others post. Why would someone read one person scripture and disvalue the same thing when returned in the same nature expressed

5. Don't get offended if someone doesnt like or follow X scripture. That means rephrase it, clarify, summarize your point, or drop it.

6. Language issues. Most likely both parties arent jewish nor speak hebrew so there is a barrier how much a person can take as valid without seeing it as interpretation and opinion

7. There are many versions of interpretations. Not expect NB to understand you interpretation as more valid than another.

8. NB usually take scripture as is.

9. Also, personally, it helps to draw your own conclusion. No one is god.

But we can't stop people from quoting.

I hope they take SOMETHING from this thread.

 

[sealchan]

I see posts that are just scripture, with very little or no personal comment attached. Of what value is this in an interfaith discussion.if any? If it's two people from different faiths, it's like exchanging two books.

Personally, I rarely, if ever read it.

Do you read it?

I tried hard to engage with someone who was sincerely posting on my thread...it took many tries before they began to speak of their own personal experience.

When a religion can't help a person articulate their personal experience of spiritual reality, then we have a deep, deep problem. We have people wearing religion as clothing but not digesting it so that it can transform their souls. They are getting the flavor, but not the true substance.

In a world, where religion no longer changes one's soul...

 

[Vinayaka]

Rarely read WHAT?

The long quoted part of scripture instead of actual human thoughts on these forums. To be clear, I'm not referring to Christianity here.

 

[Vinayaka]

I tried hard to engage with someone who was sincerely posting on my thread...it took many tries before they began to speak of their own personal experience.

When a religion can't help a person articulate their personal experience of spiritual reality, then we have a deep, deep problem. We have people wearing religion as clothing and digesting it so that it can transform their souls. They are getting the flavor, but not the true substance.

In a world, where religion no longer changes one's soul...

Totally concur ... regurgitation versus putting in your own words ... huge difference.

 

[Vinayaka]

No. I wouldn't read something unless I were specifically interested in it or asked about it. If someone handed me a copy of the Quran and said "read this", I probably would not. Not because I have anything against it, I'm just not interested. If I wanted to read it I would read it on my own.

I think only once or twice I quoted more than a few verses from the Bhagavad Gita at one time. Ordinarily it's just a verse or two to back up some point I'm trying to make relative to my beliefs, or answer a question or someone's curiosity. A wall of text from BG serves no purpose except to come off as proselytizing and/or alienating people.

I don't mind that. Like I said, I'll do it too, in very small bits. Of course the real point here is to hope that people who do rely on debating via someone else's words (unrelentingly quoting scripture) get the message that it doesn't work.

 

[sealchan]

Totally concur ... regurgitation versus putting in your own words ... huge difference.

Yes...in Christian terms I think the closest language I have heard is offering one's own personal testimony.

What has been liberating for me is a literary reading of Genesis. This has given me the freedom to discover just how much of life is being described in this scripture. From the family politics of favoritism, to the difficulties of understanding life's mystery, or of negotiating meaning with suffering. I can see the humanity of the characters in the story and identify my own experiences that are analogous. The arrow of significance points sharply towards the character of my own social and psychological experience and away from any need to base the story in history.

The one thing that far transcends the value of historicity in scripture is the familiarity of scripture with the experience of one's inner and outer human experience.

If a Christian can't articulate the value of their belief in Christ outside of Bible language, I suspect the depth of their belief.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes...in Christian terms I think the closest language I have heard is offering one's own personal testimony.

If a Christian can't articulate the value of their belief in Christ outside of Bible language, I suspect the depth of their belief.

Thank you.

When I was in the process of converting/adopting my faith, we had to write long essays explaining stuff in our own words, then reflect back on our lives to find a personal experience that tied into that. Anybody can copy and paste scripture incessantly. Being able to quote it in person is a step up from that, but it still doesn't mean you get it. A kid can memorize Pi to the first hundred digits and still may not be able to explain Pi.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In a world, where religion no longer changes one's soul...

Who failed? The person? The religion? Or both?

 

[sealchan]

Who failed? The person? The religion? Or both?

The self-proclaimed Christian who feels satisfied but cannot explain what they have learned in personal terms.

Who knows, maybe most people don't want a real spiritual experience? And a religion that actually teaches that might scare people off.

Historically, religion has operated as a container for people to feel safe in...it, perhaps, offers an option for those who want to go further.

On some level we all WANT to go further but will we choose to open that door?

A very complex question I think but well worth asking.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Historically, religion has operated as a container for people to feel safe in...it, perhaps, offers an option for those who want to go further.

For me, Hinduism is not a container but scientific investigation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is a style that would be beneficial for scripture posting.

1. Does the other understand it?
Not all of us take ministry classes and a lot of us aren't interested in Hebrew history

2. Add commentary. Scripture does not speak for itself. It doesn't give nonbelievers (NB) spontaneous spiritual knowledge. Its very self centered to even think that.

4. Read what others post. Why would someone read one person scripture and disvalue the same thing when returned in the same nature expressed

5. Don't get offended if someone doesnt like or follow X scripture. That means rephrase it, clarify, summarize your point, or drop it.

6. Language issues. Most likely both parties arent jewish nor speak hebrew so there is a barrier how much a person can take as valid without seeing it as interpretation and opinion

7. There are many versions of interpretations. Not expect NB to understand you interpretation as more valid than another.

8. NB usually take scripture as is.

9. Also, personally, it helps to draw your own conclusion. No one is god.

But we can't stop people from quoting.

I hope they take SOMETHING from this thread.

Personally, to draw a correct conclusion (# 9 above), it must be a scriptural conclusion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Personally, to draw a correct conclusion (# 9 above), it must be a scriptural conclusion.

It iw but its not all word for word. It's Gods conclusion not yours.

That's why faith can't be half and half. Take out righteous works and faith means nothing (among other verses I've already quotes throughout the whole Bible)

 

[Marcion]

Sometimes you have to quote the philosopher who taught the original idea so you can't make a mistake in interpreting his/her words.

But with certain people the texts seems to get used as a kind of authoritative shield as if they want to bewitch you with the imagined "power" of the text. A bit like what happens in movies with posessed folk and priests holding huge crucifixes in order to defeat the devil.