John 6

archives said:
Sure you are, if you recognize Jesus of Nazareth as a religious figure you are explaining religion, some don’t see him as nothing but another historical figure.

Aquinas was wrong attempting to employ reason to explain religion, all of his arguments as that of the Prime Mover are easily discredited by the cynic. Augustine was correct, it can’t be done, nor shouldn’t even be attempted, it is a question of faith, you either have it or you don’t, the difference between Plato and Aristotle
Click to expand...

With all the respect in the world, Archives, it is a bit more complex than that.

"Faith" when used in this context is merely insisting on the correctness of a blind guess, namely, "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature.".

"Faith" is not the virtue so many see it to be. It is, in fact, stone-headedness.

Said again: In the context in which you used it, "faith" is merely insisting that the blind guess "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature"...is correct.

We would probably do better to get away from that kind of thinking.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Can you even imagine the FUCKED UP SHIT rolling around in YAK YAK's little pea brain?

Hilariious!

Homer-Simpsons-brain-seen-with-MRI-X-ray-Image-reproduced-on-many-Internet-sites_Q640.jpg
Click to expand...

I know what's going on in your skull, thoughts of licking your father's pussy.
 
Frank Apisa said:
With all the respect in the world, Archives, it is a bit more complex than that.

"Faith" when used in this context is merely insisting on the correctness of a blind guess, namely, "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature.".

"Faith" is not the virtue so many see it to be. It is, in fact, stone-headedness.

Said again: In the context in which you used it, "faith" is merely insisting that the blind guess "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature"...is correct.

We would probably do better to get away from that kind of thinking.
Click to expand...

For those that share that faith it is more, those that don’t, it appears as that “blind guess,” you can’t intellectualize faith, as I noted, like Plato’s world of ideas, which is probably why Plato was called a mystic by many. At it’s core, it isn’t more complex
 
archives said:
For those that share that faith it is more, those that don’t, it appears as that “blind guess,” you can’t intellectualize faith, as I noted, like Plato’s world of ideas, which is probably why Plato was called a mystic by many. At it’s core, it isn’t more complex
Click to expand...

Well...since "faith" is contingent on a blind guess (there is a GOD) followed by a host of other blind guesses (this is what pleases or offends that GOD)...

...what else can it be but stone-headedness? A person "of faith" is simply insisting that several blind guess cannot be incorrect. And make no mistake about it...any assertion that there is a GOD (or, for that matter, that there are no gods)...are just blind guesses.

One is almost certainly correct. Either there is at least one god...or there are none.

But the further blind guesses about the nature of any gods that exist...are almost absurdities.

Right?
 
If Jesus was bread, he was a good rye. Trumptards think he's a doughy white bread kind of guy.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Well...since "faith" is contingent on a blind guess (there is a GOD) followed by a host of other blind guesses (this is what pleases or offends that GOD)...

...what else can it be but stone-headedness? A person "of faith" is simply insisting that several blind guess cannot be incorrect. And make no mistake about it...any assertion that there is a GOD (or, for that matter, that there are no gods)...are just blind guesses.

One is almost certainly correct. Either there is at least one god...or there are none.

But the further blind guesses about the nature of any gods that exist...are almost absurdities.

Right?
Click to expand...

They are absurdities to the people that lack the faith in those religious beliefs

Again, as I noted in the offset, discussing religion is unproductive given that those who believe believe in what they do because of faith, which others will call “stoneheadness” and inane. Understandable. You can not explain religious beliefs rationally, no one can scientifically explain if there is or isn’t a God, but some, via faith, accept that there is a God
 
Jesus was known to employ metaphor in virtually all his teaching.
Why would this be different ?
And of the breaking of bread the finish is to 'do this in remembrance of me'.
Its a rite, a sacrament, a thing to do that binds believers to one another and to Him.
 
Frank Apisa said:
With all the respect in the world, Archives, it is a bit more complex than that.

"Faith" when used in this context is merely insisting on the correctness of a blind guess, namely, "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature.".

"Faith" is not the virtue so many see it to be. It is, in fact, stone-headedness.

Said again: In the context in which you used it, "faith" is merely insisting that the blind guess "there IS a GOD and we can know its nature"...is correct.

We would probably do better to get away from that kind of thinking.
Click to expand...
in terms of what religion actually is,

The best definition of religion I have seen is from American theologian Max Stackhouse >


religion is "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted".
 
archives said:
They are absurdities to the people that lack the faith in those religious beliefs

Again, as I noted in the offset, discussing religion is unproductive given that those who believe believe in what they do because of faith, which others will call “stoneheadness” and inane. Understandable. You can not explain religious beliefs rationally, no one can scientifically explain if there is or isn’t a God, but some, via faith, accept that there is a God
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said there.

Some people "accept" that there is a god. That is their guess...their supposition.

Their "faith" is the insistence that their guess is correct.
 
Cypress said:
in terms of what religion actually is,

The best definition of religion I have seen is from American theologian Max Stackhouse >


religion is "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted".
Click to expand...

Not really sure of what Stackhouse was trying to say there, but it might be that he was saying that a "belief" that a god exists is a guess...just as a "belief" that no gods exist is a guess.

Maybe he was saying that but wanted to avoid using the word "guess."

I know it is difficult for people who are "people of faith" to accept that their "beliefs" are merely guesses...and that their "faith" is merely insistence.

But that is what they are.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not really sure of what Stackhouse was trying to say there, but it might be that he was saying that a "belief" that a god exists is a guess...just as a "belief" that no gods exist is a guess.

Maybe he was saying that but wanted to avoid using the word "guess."

I know it is difficult for people who are "people of faith" to accept that their "beliefs" are merely guesses...and that their "faith" is merely insistence.

But that is what they are.
Click to expand...

What puzzles me is why do believers in a religion feel the need to have everyone else believe in the same thing? If your god is real to you, isn't that enough?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not really sure of what Stackhouse was trying to say there, but it might be that he was saying that a "belief" that a god exists is a guess...just as a "belief" that no gods exist is a guess.

Maybe he was saying that but wanted to avoid using the word "guess."

I know it is difficult for people who are "people of faith" to accept that their "beliefs" are merely guesses...and that their "faith" is merely insistence.

But that is what they are.
Click to expand...



I thought it what he wrote was crystal clear, but I guess that was just me.

The theme I obliquely am making is that any critique of religion should begin with a universal understanding of what religion actually is.

Same for any critique of atheism, agnosticism, or existentialism.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
What puzzles me is why do believers in a religion feel the need to have everyone else believe in the same thing? If your god is real to you, isn't that enough?
Click to expand...

I am more understanding of proselytizing than you, OW. If a person feels it to be an obligation to attempt to proselytize, I have no problem with it.
 
Cypress said:
I thought it what he wrote was crystal clear, but I guess that was just me.

The theme I obliquely am making is that any critique of religion should begin with a universal understanding of what religion actually is.

Same for any critique of atheism, agnosticism, or existentialism.
Click to expand...

I think I do understand what religion is...at least for the majority of "religions."

"Religion" essentially is making a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY.

For almost all the religions currently operating...that is exactly what it is.

The "faith" part of most religions is just insistence that the blind guess is correct.
 
Celticguy said:
Jesus was known to employ metaphor in virtually all his teaching.
Why would this be different ?
And of the breaking of bread the finish is to 'do this in remembrance of me'.
Its a rite, a sacrament, a thing to do that binds believers to one another and to Him.
Click to expand...

His words are what's different. He does speak metaphorically anthem changes. It's clear
 
Frank Apisa said:
I am more understanding of proselytizing than you, OW. If a person feels it to be an obligation to attempt to proselytize, I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I didn't start this thread to proselytize necessarily but to discuss how people interpret what Jesus said in the gospel of life discourse in John 6. I am actually more interested in what non believers think if they can separate from the idea of belief. In just looking at the words was Jesus speaking figuratively nor literally.

I certainly agree people should do what their conscience dictates regarding their religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top