John 6

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...

How do you feel about those who will not take "no, thanks" for an answer? Or about those that then treat you differently because you said "No, thanks"?
 
Yakuda said:
How is that any different than your political opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't normally go around giving out my political opinion unless I've joined a discussion about politics, or someone has asked. (I also don't put bumper stickers on my car.) Some religionists, however, feel that they must share their beliefs with others whether you are interested or not, whether you are discussing religion or not.

If your (group your) beliefs are that sincere, why isn't that sufficient? Why does it make you (group you) uneasy if others don't share them? Worse of all, why do some religionists want to make them into the laws of their country?
 
Yakuda said:
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.
Click to expand...

Christ often spoke in metaphors, as others here have pointed out. Although Protestants believe that Holy Communion is not a LITERAL sharing of His body and His blood, the RC church teaches otherwise -- officially. I doubt if anyone receiving Eucharist though believes that they are actually eating flesh. The communion part is with the believer and Jesus, souls meeting and becoming close.
 
Yakuda said:
I don't see many actual religion threads on this board so I thought I'd start one.

A major difference between some Christian denominations is the teaching of Jesus regarding his body and blood. Most protestant denominations believe that in the book of John chapter 6 Jesus is speaking figuratively while Catholics and other orthodox denominations believe Jesus is speaking literally. What do you think?
Click to expand...

there is no mystery, Jesus explains the parable himself in verse 63...
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
Click to expand...

take that literally......it is his Spirit that gives life, not his flesh......
 
Frank Apisa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there is more to religion than just a blind guess.

Religions, first and foremost, are systems of moral awareness informing one how to live this life. The nature of the afterlife, if any, is strictly a matter of belief or opinion.

Opinions are part and parcel of being human. The premminent Russian physicist Andrei Sakraov did not subscribe to Christianity, but his opinion is that there are limits to human knowledge, and his "blind guess" was that there was an underlying guiding principle to the universe which probably was beyond our comprehension.

That is my way of saying that opinions and blind guesses are just part of the human condition.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Christ often spoke in metaphors, as others here have pointed out. Although Protestants believe that Holy Communion is not a LITERAL sharing of His body and His blood, the RC church teaches otherwise -- officially. I doubt if anyone receiving Eucharist though believes that they are actually eating flesh. The communion part is with the believer and Jesus, souls meeting and becoming close.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for both Jesus is speaking literally and I believe I have clearly pinged out where.

It is true that many Catholics don't believe in the real presence much to their own destruction.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't normally go around giving out my political opinion unless I've joined a discussion about politics, or someone has asked. (I also don't put bumper stickers on my car.) Some religionists, however, feel that they must share their beliefs with others whether you are interested or not, whether you are discussing religion or not.

If your (group your) beliefs are that sincere, why isn't that sufficient? Why does it make you (group you) uneasy if others don't share them? Worse of all, why do some religionists want to make them into the laws of their country?
Click to expand...

So you can't just say, "No thank you I'm not interested"? It seems unnecessarily hostile to expect people to be quiet about their faith. The point is plenty of people have no problem sharing their political opinions even if you don't. I don't believe I should be exposed to that any more than you think you should be exposed to religious beliefs being expressed.
 
Yakuda said:
So you can't just say, "No thank you I'm not interested"? It seems unnecessarily hostile to expect people to be quiet about their faith. The point is plenty of people have no problem sharing their political opinions even if you don't.
Click to expand...

Try reading my comment to Frank about that (#61). Yes, I can and do say "No, thanks." Most accept that, but not all. Some will pester and pester. I've even had a few who escalated to the point of anger.

It's not so much to ask ppl to be happy with what they've chosen, and leave others to be happy with their own choices. After all, if you love wearing jeans, do you feel the need to approach ppl not wearing jeans and tell them how great they are, how well they fit, and invite them to wear jeans too? If they say "No, thanks" is it okay to beseech them to at least TRY them? Just be happy with your pants and move on.

I don't like ppl who offer their political POV without being asked, either. I don't force mine on others; I expect the same courtesy.
 
Yakuda said:
His words are what's different. He does speak metaphorically anthem changes. It's clear
Click to expand...

I do not see what he said as not metaphorical in the translations given.
those last two words may be key here.
Even the Roman Catholics say that the transformation "becomes for us". So they kinda hedge it as well.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Try reading my comment to Frank about that (#61). Yes, I can and do say "No, thanks." Most accept that, but not all. Some will pester and pester. I've even had a few who escalated to the point of anger.

It's not so much to ask ppl to be happy with what they've chosen, and leave others to be happy with their own choices. After all, if you love wearing jeans, do you feel the need to approach ppl not wearing jeans and tell them how great they are, how well they fit, and invite them to wear jeans too? If they say "No, thanks" is it okay to beseech them to at least TRY them? Just be happy with your pants and move on.
Click to expand...

Good they should accept it and it's unfortunate when they don't.

I think there is all too little do your thing and "move on" these days as some people have taken it upon themselves to decide what other people should think and if they don't there can be significantly uncomfortable consequences.

That aside this is far afield from the topic. It seems in your view Jesus was speaking figuratively.
 
Yakuda said:
So you can't just say, "No thank you I'm not interested"? It seems unnecessarily hostile to expect people to be quiet about their faith. The point is plenty of people have no problem sharing their political opinions even if you don't. I don't believe I should be exposed to that any more than you think you should be exposed to religious beliefs being expressed.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't come knocking on my door trying to give me literature.

Muslims, Jews, and Hindus don't do that.
 
Celticguy said:
I do not see what he said as not metaphorical in the translations given.
those last two words may be key here.
Even the Roman Catholics say that the transformation "becomes for us". So they kinda hedge it as well.
Click to expand...

Then I think you have a very cloudy view of what he said. Jesus speaks metaphorically in v 35 "I and the bread of life". That's clearly metaphorical as he is not bread. Again v 48 he says I am the bread of life. Once again clearly metaphorical. Once more v 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. More metaphor. However in that same verse he says, "This bread (the metaphor he just mentioned 3 times) is my flesh ( not a metaphor as he has flesh) which I will give for the life of the world".
 
Yakuda said:
Then I think you have a very cloudy view of what he said. Jesus speaks metaphorically in v 35 "I and the bread of life". That's clearly metaphorical as he is not bread. Again v 48 he says I am the bread of life. Once again clearly metaphorical. Once more v 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. More metaphor. However in that same verse he says, "This bread (the metaphor he just mentioned 3 times) is my flesh ( not a metaphor as he has flesh) which I will give for the life of the world".
Click to expand...

And that clearly refers to what was to become of his flesh the next day.
Judas understood what that meant which is why he killed himself.
 
Celticguy said:
And that clearly refers to what was to become of his flesh the next day.
Judas understood what that meant which is why he killed himself.
Click to expand...

That's not what Jesus says. He refers to himself as the bread of life and explicitly naatsrs this bread is my flesh and the ln says 3 times you just eat my flesh.
 
Yakuda said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good luck with what you are trying to do here, Yakuda. Interesting enough topic.

But it is worth noting that many, if not most, Christian scholars severely limit their reliance on anything from the Gospel of John. It is the most fanciful...and least consistent. Members of both The Jesus Project and The Jesus Seminar are essentially in accord that John is unreliable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top