No one has ever taken the "will not take 'no thanks' for an answer" with me. I can be rather forceful in my "NO THANKS" if I have to be.
I treat them differently in return.
John 6
- Thread starter Yakuda
- Start date
No one has ever taken the "will not take 'no thanks' for an answer" with me. I can be rather forceful in my "NO THANKS" if I have to be.
I treat them differently in return.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. The 'spreading of Christianity' has done immeasurable damage to the African continent. I had a friend who was a pastor who felt pretty strongly about this topic. He shared a story. True or not, it brought home the hypocrisy of Christian missionaries converting the native.
'A group of Christian missionaries visited a remote village, and began trying to convert the people of this tribe. They explained that the only way to heaven was through belief in Jesus Christ, and they were there to make sure the tribe was 'saved'. The chief met with the missionaries and asked them 'what would have happened had you not shown up and told us about Jesus Christ? What if we never got the chance to know about this?' The missionaries replied that God would forgive them if they had never been made aware of Jesus'. So the chief asked them 'Then why did you come here and tell us?'
Spreading the word has meant violence, cultural destruction, disease and death. Nothing good comes of it.
I'll limit my response to just this comment, Cypress...because your point here is valid.
I should have rephrased my comment.
Here is the essential of what I was saying there in other words. We can discuss the revision if you choose.
Anyone who asserts "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY.
There may be at least one god...there may be no gods.
There is absolutely NO WAY one can KNOW there are no gods. Any assertion that there are no gods...IS A BLIND GUESS.
On the other hand, if a person asserts, "There is a GOD" that person is either asserting a blind guess (as with the person asserting there are no gods) or is doing so as the result of what they consider a revelation from the GOD (or gods)...which then begs the question, "How do you know you are no deluding yourself?"...to which the only logical answer is, "I do not know that"...which brings us back to the assertion being a blind guess.
I'd be delighted to discuss this with anyone.
Concart, Christianity has done lots of very bad things...and done a ton of very good, helpful, and beneficial things.
Love Christianity; hate Christianity; be indifferent to Christianity...YOUR CHOICE.
On balance, I think organized religion has been a bane to humanity. As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Same can be said of any religion. It isn't the philosophy that bothers me, it's the dogma. It has been used to do far too many monstrous things. Perhaps all of these things would have happened anyway, but the ease by which religion is used as a pretext for evil is the rule, not the exception. That said, I respect your beliefs, and I have no doubt about YOUR sincerity. I can't same the same for many others in this thread.
These discussions are fascinating. I'd say this about the concept of 'God'. If we accept that God is supernatural (i.e. acts outside of the rules of nature THAT WE UNDERSTAND), it seems as if God is nothing more than a placeholder for things we don't yet understand. Every time someone says that God is under that rock right up ahead, we lift the rock and find science. If God is viewed as more of a spiritual essence, then I am agnostic about that version of 'God', but I don't think that's the widely accepted definition.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
I tend to avoid them in the future, if at all possible. In a work situation, though, it's hard.
This is a funny anecdote. I worked for almost a decade for a small typesetting company that used to be affiliated with Western Publishing. It was a small office that was big on decorum. Once I was gently told not to laugh so much or so loudly because it "upsets Jack." Jack was the CEO. Yet the guy who distributed the mail and did other tasks that involved walking around all day used to sing gospel hymns very loudly as he visited this area and that area. *Nothing* was ever said to him about not upsetting Jack with his noise. Everyone loved Arthur, the singing guy, who was blessed with a beautiful voice. Maybe they just didn't love Owl as much.
Yakuda
Verified User
I'm just trying to have a conversation.
Granted but none of that changes the canon of the bible. I understand it's a hard teaching but that's the point and why so many walked away.
Yakuda
Verified User
Doesnt mean Christianity is wrong.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
he specifically states what the verse means in verse 63......the rest is idle speculation
Yakuda
Verified User
Once again you are correct he says THE (my emphasis) flesh not MY flesh counts for nothing. Three times he says you must eat MY flesh.
The Gospel of John is abrasive to me for a number of reasons, one of which is sso trivial it is embarrassing to mention. But I will.
I am a sports fan...and enjoy watching sports events on television. NOTHING is more irritating than to see some moron in the background holding a huge sign with the words, "John 3:16" on it.
John 3:16, in my opinion is the greatest insult anyone could ever make against any supposed god.
And for me, the "In principio erat verbum" beginning is a turnoff. It makes no real sense and is an assault on figurative speak.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Christianity would disappear without that passage. The essence of the religion.
By the way, Yakuda, when I was a practicing Catholic, I had no trouble accepting that the consecrated host WAS the flesh of Jesus with the accidental properties of bread.
That passage, in my opinion, is the most damning thing ever said about any of the many gods that have been popular on planet Earth over the years.
"Sin" is something a human does that offends the "sinner's" god.
The passage at John 3:16 essentially says, "Okay, you have offended me, but I am willing to forgive you for doing so. However, in order to obtain this forgiveness, you must first torture and kill my son."
If a human gave that same condition to an act of forgiveness...people would demand that the human be locked in a mental institution.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Yes, I am no fan of Christianity.
Yakuda
Verified User
Got it. Just interested in if you think Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively in the mentioned chapter. I certainly think the guy with the John 3:16 sign was more an attention whore than a Christian but that's just my opinion. Thanks.
Yakuda
Verified User
Sad you aren't still but good to hear you did as so many supposed currently practicing Catholics don't.
Would love to discuss with you some day why you left.
My guess is that whoever wrote John meant for that passage to be taken literally. I suspect the early church fathers thought it to be literal...not figurative, although I acknowledge that the term "transubstantiation" was not actually used widely before the 13th century. It seems to me that the early fathers thought they were actually partaking of the body and blood of Christ during the ceremony at that time.
Some of the reasons given for discarding the literal implications by break-away churches seem contrived to me...and seem to be motivated by a desire to be as far away from the Catholic Church as possible rather than a result of reasoned indication that the passage is meant only figuratively.
Decent, reasonable people disagree on that...and fine with me.
At any time, Yakuda. Here if you want...or somewhere else. These threads tend to wander...so at some point we might discuss the "leaving" right here.