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"?
John 6
- Thread starter Yakuda
- Start date
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"?
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?
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.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
there is no mystery, Jesus explains the parable himself in verse 63...
take that literally......it is his Spirit that gives life, not his flesh......
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.
Yakuda
Verified User
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.
Yakuda
Verified User
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.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is he?.....do you believe all the parables are Jesus speaking literally?......was there really a Good Samaritan?.....were there really ten foolish virgins?.....
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.
That is your opinion; it is not factual.
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.
Yakuda
Verified User
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.
They shouldn't come knocking on my door trying to give me literature.
Muslims, Jews, and Hindus don't do that.
Yakuda
Verified User
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
Verified User
I couldn't care less.
Yakuda
Verified User
Right Jesus says THE flesh not his flesh. He is clear what his flesh is v 51
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.
Yakuda
Verified User
No ive pointed out where Jesus is speaking literally
Yakuda
Verified User
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.
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.