Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

[S.A.M.]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

If it later turns out that they taught the other person wrongly in any way, do the theists believe they will face negative consequences?

Or is it all simply caveat emptor, and all the responsibility is with the people who listen to theists?

That depends - do they believe in what they preach? I had something like a discussion with a member by PM where we argued about the importance of an authority to tell you what is the right belief. I argued against that notion because no matter how much time and effort you spend on the matter it boils down to two things:

1. Your belief in the religious authority [what makes a particular authority more "right"]

2. Your decision to choose to believe that authority over all other authorities

IOW no matter who is preaching, you are still the one choosing, so why do you need a middle man?

What you need to consider is why you believe what you believe. And why you consider such and such to be the right way to believe and so and so to be the right authority to guide you

 

[wynn]

and the stance is not new to you. remember? you call it "solipsism".

Hoping that the other person would communicate to me where I'm at (a mere mortal human being living here in the material world) is not the same as solipsism.

 

[wynn]

That depends - do they believe in what they preach? I had something like a discussion with a member by PM where we argued about the importance of an authority to tell you what is the right belief. I argued against that notion because no matter how much time and effort you spend on the matter it boils down to two things:

1. Your belief in the religious authority [what makes a particular authority more "right"]

2. Your decision to choose to believe that authority over all other authorities

IOW no matter who is preaching, you are still the one choosing, so why do you need a middle man?

What you need to consider is why you believe what you believe. And why you consider such and such to be the right way to believe and so and so to be the right authority to guide you

I do think that only an authority can tell you what the right belief is.
But this is so only in principle; in spiritual/religious practice, it is a dead end since the run-of-the-mill person is per definition disqualified from recognizing authority.

In the end, it does come down to "choosing for yourself" - that very thing that so many religions (all theisms?) condemn.

It is an absurd situation.

 

[Lori_7]

Hoping that the other person would communicate to me where I'm at (a mere mortal human being living here in the material world) is not the same as solipsism.

where else could they possibly communicate to you?

 

[Lori_7]

I do think that only an authority can tell you what the right belief is.
But this is so only in principle; in spiritual/religious practice, it is a dead end since the run-of-the-mill person is per definition disqualified from recognizing authority.

In the end, it does come down to "choosing for yourself" - that very thing that so many religions (all theisms?) condemn.

It is an absurd situation.

that's a lie. here, i'll paraphrase the bible for you..."god is the authority. choose for yourself. you can't serve two masters." the bible repeatedly discredits religion and religious authority, and defines salvation by no other means than your personal rebirth via the holy spirit. the bible contains story, after story, after story, of people accomplishing miraculous things and repenting, under the direct influence of the holy spirit, and despite not having any support in this endeavor from society, their families and friends, or the religious authority. usually quite the opposite.

i have experienced a situation very much like that myself. and that's why i believe what i do, and tell you about it when you ask. now i can't help it if you've never had an experience like this, but when i tell you about mine and what i believe, i'm speaking to you human to human, because i absolutely refuse to believe that what happened to me can't happen to anyone. i see you out here over and over saying that you're desperate for an answer and you're miserable because of it, and there is something that helped me in that same situation, i'm going to tell you about it.

god is with you.

and that's from one sinner to another.

 

[wynn]

The Bible - translated and provided to you by those same religious authorities you so abhor ...

 

[Lori_7]

The Bible - translated and provided to you by those same religious authorities you so abhor ...

i don't recognize them as an authority. religion and the bible existed long before i ever took an interest in what it said. religion and human beings can not and will not ever provide the type of interpretation and understanding that the holy spirit does.

 

[Yazata]

I do think that only an authority can tell you what the right belief is.

Maybe. I think that I'd prefer to think of it a little differently -- An authority can help us reach the place where we're able to recognize for ourselves what the right belief is.

But this is so only in principle; in spiritual/religious practice, it is a dead end since the run-of-the-mill person is per definition disqualified from recognizing authority.

I'm not sure that I totally agree with that one.

Certainly I do agree with what you said in an all-or-nothing sense, where we are talking about attaining THE ULTIMATE. Which obviously begs the question whether it even exists and is accessable to human beings.

Of course, if "run of the mill" (presumably meaning 'normal' or 'finite' or 'mortal') people are incapable of penetrating through to knowledge of transcendent things, then that would seem to once again be a pretty good (and rather familiar) argument for agnosticism regarding transcendental matters. If we take that line of argument seriously, then it seemingly applies to all of the purported religious authorities right along with all of the rest of us.

Where I think that I am going to disagree with you is in my intuitive feeling that incremental progress is possible on spiritual paths. Progress doesn't necessarily suggest that any of our teachers has reached some transcendntal apotheosis, but only that they have deepened their practice a little beyond where we are at the moment, and that they might conceivably have something worth teaching us.

I'm just naturally doubtful of suggestions that some people (your 'theists'?) have some magical pipeline to transcendence, or even if some of them somehow do, that any of the rest of us could ever know it. I'm equally skeptical of the Indian tantric traditions of guru-worship.

I much prefer the idea of everyone being peers on the path, being students of spirituality, fellow seekers, or what the suttas call 'spiritual friends'. Some of those around us might well be more knowledgeble than we are, more compassionate, more proficient, or less self-involved. But that can't just be proclaimed, it needs to be demonstrated. It grows out of our deepening knowledge of and respect for the truly authoritative ones and it probably isn't ever the sort of unbridgeable transcendental chasm that you are imagining.

Our teachers. the "authorities", are people just like us. It just happens that they have something valuable that they can teach us in a particular instance. Maybe in another instance we will be the ones be teaching them, or perhaps both of us will find ourselves alongside one another learning together.

You know, not only the sangha, but university graduate school illustrates this. Students progress out of undergraduate classrooms (learn the material, take the exam) to situations where they end up embedded in their professors' research teams, working together to make progress on a scholarly problem that none of them entirely understands.