NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a little bored right now because I stayed home from work, feeling a little rundown. So I thought I might try my first post. My interests are in religion, history, things of those natures. History is science, I believe, but not hard science. Anyway here is a short statement from the Baha'i Faith: Do you agree or disagree?

Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ.

I'm a little bored right now because I stayed home from work, feeling a little rundown. So I thought I might try my first post. My interests are in religion, history, things of those natures. History is science, I believe, but not hard science.

What is the context of hard you are using?

Something very challenging like, "This computer game is really hard."
or
As in not based upon solid fact?

Anyway here is a short statement from the Baha'i Faith: Do you agree or disagree?

Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ.

Certainly interesting.

[QUOTE]What is the context of hard you are using?

Something very challenging like, "This computer game is really hard."
or
As in not based upon solid fact?


I wish I had not put the comment of "hard science" in the post. It was just a side comment and not at all the main idea. Hard science is meant to mean that evidence is less subjective than other kinds of science. Important science just the same.

<snip>
Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ.

Odd that they should say that. The early fathers of Christianity, continuing right on up to the current Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (and possibly a few others), believe the same thing. I believe the term is "trans-substantiation". And yet they believe, and the others did not. I don't think the bread issue was the deal-breaker for those people, but rather a convenient excuse for rejecting a radical idea, to which they didn't want to give diligent consideration.

Odd that they should say that. The early fathers of Christianity, continuing right on up to the current Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (and possibly a few others), believe the same thing. I believe the term is "trans-substantiation". And yet they believe, and the others did not. I don't think the bread issue was the deal-breaker for those people, but rather a convenient excuse for rejecting a radical idea, to which they didn't want to give diligent consideration.

Yes, so many of those of claim non-belief use the example of eating flesh and other kinds of rather strange examples of literal interpatations of spiritual truths as proof of non-existance of God.

Well I gotta go and do something.