What Are Your Religious Beliefs?

[Mertex]

I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.

That is interesting. Where do you get your information about the God you believe in? I'm not trying to be facetious, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Meriweather]

I have not compared the command of Jesus to eat his flesh to cannibalism. I said that the disciples who left Jesus misunderstood this saying for cannibalism, "How can he give us his flesh to eat", exactly like the Roman authorities did, the same people who founded and gave authority to your church based on the same misunderstanding that led to the bizarre eating of the God ceremony where you seek spiritual nourishment from something lifeless made by human hands.

I stand with the disciples who remained as clearly recorded in scripture when they confirmed their belief in metaphor explained by Jesus in John 6:63 that flesh is worthless and his words, teaching, is what gives life and is the subject of his figurative use of the word flesh.

"The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail (worthless). The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life."

When Jesus asked them if they were going to leave him too after he explained to them the metaphor, Simon Peter said;

"Lord, to whom shall we go? Your words are words of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:68

I understand the argument offered for metaphor. The reason shrugging it off as metaphor doesn't work for Catholics is because Jesus said something very hard to accept--so hard that many left him. To them, it was no metaphor--and it wasn't to Peter, either. He, however, maintained his trust in Jesus and in the hard truths that he taught.

Furthermore, If Christ's words are eternal life, then when Jesus broke the bread and said, "Take and eat--this is my body," do you believe that metaphorically Jesus was saying the bread was a substitute for his actual words (since you believe that is the reasonable explanation that can be deduced from John 6:68)? Why would Jesus pile on awkward metaphor upon difficult to understand metaphor? Why not say, "By hearing and acting upon upon my words you are consuming me, and you will have eternal life?"

Why offer bread saying, "This is my body" and wine saying, "This is my blood"? It was understood at that time that blood was life, and as such, life and blood belongs to God. Jesus was offering what God alone is able to offer us: His body, His life, which we receive through bread and wine.

I understand why you hold the variant belief. That belief just doesn't work for many of us. It tries to scoot around scripture, Apostolic teaching, and early Christian belief as written out by Church Fathers during time of persecution. We accept the mystery and have faith in it. Why? Because Christ has the words of eternal life.

 

[PredFan]

I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.

That is interesting. Where do you get your information about the God you believe in? I'm not trying to be facetious, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.

Observation, theory, deduction, belief.

 

[Mertex]

I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.

That is interesting. Where do you get your information about the God you believe in? I'm not trying to be facetious, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.

Observation, theory, deduction, belief.

I can understand "observation" but what theory? Whose theory?

 

[Grendelyn]

..... I'm looking to go in the Bull Ring with someone regarding Christianity and their Religious beliefs.

So tell me, which of the following do you believe (and, if it's not listed, please specify)

1. Atheist
2. Agnostic
3. Believes in a Supreme Being, but not the God of the Bible
4. Believes in something, not necessarily a person, but a force
5. Believes there is no one thing or person that rules, but, more of a cosmic chain of events.

Again, there are many options, but, I'd like to hear what you believe, even if you aren't sure or don't care.

Thanks,

I'm an atheist for the simple reason that there has never been any empirical proof, outside of the bible, that a God has ever existed. If a God does indeed exist, She's doing an outstanding job at keeping herself hidden.

 

[Mertex]

..... I'm looking to go in the Bull Ring with someone regarding Christianity and their Religious beliefs.

So tell me, which of the following do you believe (and, if it's not listed, please specify)

1. Atheist
2. Agnostic
3. Believes in a Supreme Being, but not the God of the Bible
4. Believes in something, not necessarily a person, but a force
5. Believes there is no one thing or person that rules, but, more of a cosmic chain of events.

Again, there are many options, but, I'd like to hear what you believe, even if you aren't sure or don't care.

Thanks,

I'm an atheist for the simple reason that there has never been any empirical proof, outside of the bible, that a God has ever existed. If a God does indeed exist, She's doing an outstanding job at keeping herself hidden.

Really? You've never seen even one marvelous and wonderful thing on this earth that was not created by man? That's sad. The very unexplainable existence of the "universe" in all it's mystique and awe is enough for me to recognize that there has to be an intelligent designer. To think that everything in the universe just came about by chance is as unbelievable to me as the claim that there has never been any empirical proof that there is a God is to those who don't believe.

 

[PredFan]

I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.

That is interesting. Where do you get your information about the God you believe in? I'm not trying to be facetious, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.

Observation, theory, deduction, belief.

I can understand "observation" but what theory? Whose theory?

My observation, my theory, my belief.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[hobelim]

I understand the argument offered for metaphor. The reason shrugging it off as metaphor doesn't work for Catholics is because Jesus said something very hard to accept--so hard that many left him. To them, it was no metaphor--and it wasn't to Peter, either. He, however, maintained his trust in Jesus and in the hard truths that he taught.

Those that left left because they couldn't stomach what seemed like the crazy talk of a madman. Peter remained because he and the others who remained were given a rational explanation, flesh was a metaphor for teaching, nothing too hard nor too difficult to swallow about that..

Furthermore, If Christ's words are eternal life, then when Jesus broke the bread and said, "Take and eat--this is my body," do you believe that metaphorically Jesus was saying the bread was a substitute for his actual words (since you believe that is the reasonable explanation that can be deduced from John 6:68)? Why would Jesus pile on awkward metaphor upon difficult to understand metaphor? Why not say, "By hearing and acting upon upon my words you are consuming me, and you will have eternal life?"

You have failed to include in your speculations that Jesus was on a mission from God who told him what to say and how to say it. Why did he speak in parables and metaphors? To teach people how to understand the language of the prophets who spoke for God so they could access a treasure of incalculable value that was buried and hidden for thousands of years in the fantastical stories and figurative language used in the OT.

Jesus said that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you can have no life in you. His flesh, teaching, is about how to correctly understand the figurative language used in the law that reveals hidden subjects. The promise for compliance with the law is eternal life. Because Jesus taught the only right way to understand and comply with the laws demands that results in the promise of eternal life fulfilled his words are words of eternal life.

Why offer bread saying, "This is my body" and wine saying, "This is my blood"? .

Why? Excellent question.

Jesus repeatedly warned his disciples about a test according to scripture. He told them to be careful how they listen (Luke 8:18). He berated them saying, "How can you fail to see that I was not speaking about bread? (Mat 16:11). He compared himself to the serpent that Moses lifted up during the time of testing in the wilderness. He admonished his disciples to stay awake and pray to be spared the test in Gethsemane where Jesus prayed to God for him to change his mind about some unspecified cup.

The warnings are actually intended for the reader.

Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15

I will force your oppressors to eat their own flesh and make them drunk on their own blood as if with new wine. Isaiah 49:26


From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations. Rev 19:15

I understand why you hold the variant belief. That belief just doesn't work for many of us. It tries to scoot around scripture,

No, you do not understand. You cannot understand. You worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.

If scripture is true, you died a very, very, long time ago. Your putrefied flesh is vile and contaminating. Can't you smell that smell?


Do yourself a favor and go back to the drawing board.

Humble yourself and re-read everything in scripture as if you were a little child about to read a fairy tale for the very first time knowing that it has a hidden teaching and then look and look and keep on looking for that teaching until you find it as if your life depended on it. It does.

Maybe then you will notice that only in the gospel of John any talk about eating flesh and drinking blood happened before the last supper and during the last supper the only one given bread, dipped in wine, was Judas as the way that Jesus identified his betrayer to everyone else..This is no accidental discrepancy.

Remember? As soon as Judas received the bread, Satan entered him. (John 13:27)

 

[Meriweather]

Those that left left because they couldn't stomach what seemed like the crazy talk of a madman. Peter remained because he and the others who remained were given a rational explanation, flesh was a metaphor for teaching, nothing too hard nor too difficult to swallow about that..

You have failed to include in your speculations that Jesus was on a mission from God who told him what to say and how to say it. Why did he speak in parables and metaphors? To teach people how to understand the language of the prophets who spoke for God so they could access a treasure of incalculable value that was buried and hidden for thousands of years in the fantastical stories and figurative language used in the OT.

Jesus said that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you can have no life in you. His flesh, teaching, is about how to correctly understand the figurative language used in the law that reveals hidden subjects. The promise for compliance with the law is eternal life. Because Jesus taught the only right way to understand and comply with the laws demands that

Jesus repeatedly warned his disciples about a test according to scripture. He told them to be careful how they listen (Luke 8:18). He berated them saying, "How can you fail to see that I was not speaking about bread? (Mat 16:11). He compared himself to the serpent that Moses lifted up during the time of testing in the wilderness. He admonished his disciples to stay awake and pray to be spared the test in Gethsemane where Jesus prayed to God for him to change his mind about some unspecified cup.

The warnings are actually intended for the reader.

Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15

I will force your oppressors to eat their own flesh and make them drunk on their own blood as if with new wine. Isaiah 49:26

From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations. Rev 19:15

No, you do not understand. You cannot understand. You worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.

If scripture is true, you died a very, very, long time ago. Your putrefied flesh is vile and contaminating. Can't you smell that smell?

Do yourself a favor and go back to the drawing board.

Humble yourself and re-read everything in scripture as if you were a little child about to read a fairy tale for the very first time knowing that it has a hidden teaching and then look and look and keep on looking for that teaching until you find it as if your life depended on it. It does.

Maybe then you will notice that only in the gospel of John any talk about eating flesh and drinking blood happened before the last supper and during the last supper the only one given bread, dipped in wine, was Judas as the way that Jesus identified his betrayer to everyone else..This is no accidental discrepancy.

Remember? As soon as Judas received the bread, Satan entered him. (John 13:27)

• Exodus teaches us that God sent manna from heaven to feed His people.
• Leviticus teaches us that bread is the staff of life.
• Jesus taught that he is the living bread come down from heaven.
• He broke bread, gave it to his disciples and said, "Eat, this is my body."
• With blood, we trace that very same path back to life, which belongs to God and was gifted to us by God.

With so much emphasis on life, I doubt Jesus wished his disciples to view the bread he gave as lifeless. Second, read the other Gospels. They leave the impression that that the bread dipped in the sop came before the hour when Jesus broke bread and gave to his disciples with the pronouncement it was his body. Another thought to mull over is that the Apostles and Early Church emphasized one was not to eat and drink the communion bread and wine unworthily. In other words, even if we suppose all Twelve were given the bread Jesus said was his body, then we cannot help but notice the dire consequences of someone who received unworthily. Receiving mere bread does not cause people to caution others about receiving it unworthily.

Many of Christ's teachings include metaphors, but many others do not. I have studied the metaphor argument for this particular case and find it wanting for reasons already mentioned. However, if it works for you and others, then let it bring you peace. The alternate scriptural path should not be a disturbance to you, but should only serve to give you an understanding of an alternate view that has been in place from Apostolic times.

 

[hobelim]

• Exodus teaches us that God sent manna from heaven to feed His people.

• Leviticus teaches us that bread is the staff of life.

• Jesus taught that he is the living bread come down from heaven.

• He broke bread, gave it to his disciples and said, "Eat, this is my body."

• With blood, we trace that very same path back to life, which belongs to God and was gifted to us by God.

Jesus replied to the devil, " Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."


Manna from heaven, the food of angels, is a metaphor for teaching from God.

Jesus himself established that bread is figurative for teaching in Matthew 16:11, 12..

"Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Another thought to mull over is that the Apostles and Early Church emphasized one was not to eat and drink the communion bread and wine unworthily. In other words, even if we suppose all Twelve were given the bread Jesus said was his body, then we cannot help but notice the dire consequences of someone who received unworthily. Receiving mere bread does not cause people to caution others about receiving it unworthily.

"He who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Its not a caution about eating bread unworthily, its about failing to comprehend that bread = flesh = teaching.

Why is it a caution?


What is the consequence for perjuring yourself in the name of God?

What is the consequence for misleading others?

What is the consequence for desecrating the body of Christ?


take your time.............

 

[Iceweasel]

What you believe about Jesus is regurgitated Church dogma that is based on Roman ignorance about the figurative nature of the fantastical stories that were intentionally written by Jews to preserve teaching from God openly in a way that would go over the heads of their superstitious Roman enemy who had just destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and their way of life while slaughtering and sending into exile and slavery hundreds of thousands of Jews...

What you believe about Jesus is superstitious archaic lore based on the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation of the gospels possible.

There is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands that one must worship and eat for spiritual life. The entire Bible clearly condemns such a vile and degrading practice that is an open rebellion against the divine commands and desecration of the teachings of Jesus, the actual Body of Christ.

That may not be what you believe, and you are entitled to that unbelief, but damn....

Respectfully, you did not answer my question. I asked: Which New Testament books are Roman superstition, propaganda, and ignorance?

The rest of your post, unfortunately, is speculation based on propaganda. It is so far from my experiences, studies, and why I believe as I do, that there is no common ground, at present, for us to stand.

All the writings are made up by men. There were many books and a committee selected the ones to include in defining their religion, as requested by the emperor.

Your studies are nothing more than circular reasoning, it's true because it's written an it's written because it's true. That's not rational and dismissing any and all objections doesn't make your case.

 

[hobelim]

What you believe about Jesus is regurgitated Church dogma that is based on Roman ignorance about the figurative nature of the fantastical stories that were intentionally written by Jews to preserve teaching from God openly in a way that would go over the heads of their superstitious Roman enemy who had just destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and their way of life while slaughtering and sending into exile and slavery hundreds of thousands of Jews...

What you believe about Jesus is superstitious archaic lore based on the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation of the gospels possible.

There is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands that one must worship and eat for spiritual life. The entire Bible clearly condemns such a vile and degrading practice that is an open rebellion against the divine commands and desecration of the teachings of Jesus, the actual Body of Christ.

That may not be what you believe, and you are entitled to that unbelief, but damn....

Respectfully, you did not answer my question. I asked: Which New Testament books are Roman superstition, propaganda, and ignorance?

The rest of your post, unfortunately, is speculation based on propaganda. It is so far from my experiences, studies, and why I believe as I do, that there is no common ground, at present, for us to stand.

All the writings are made up by men. There were many books and a committee selected the ones to include in defining their religion, as requested by the emperor.

Your studies are nothing more than circular reasoning, it's true because it's written an it's written because it's true. That's not rational and dismissing any and all objections doesn't make your case.

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

 

[Iceweasel]

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

That was borrowed heavily from Philo of Alexandria, who was instrumental in Hellinizing Jewish concepts.

 

[hobelim]

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

That was borrowed heavily from Philo of Alexandria, who was instrumental in Hellinizing Jewish concepts.

Interesting.


When one considers the time of Egyptian slavery, Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests of the holy land one can understand why to Jesus , his disciples, and the authors of the gospels, 'the nations" were the enemy.

The story most certainly isn't about Jesus submitting to Roman torture and crucifixion because he loved them so much.

 

[Iceweasel]

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

That was borrowed heavily from Philo of Alexandria, who was instrumental in Hellinizing Jewish concepts.

Interesting.


When one considers the time of Egyptian slavery, Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests of the holy land one can understand why to Jesus , his disciples, and the authors of the gospels, 'the nations" were the enemy.

The story most certainly isn't about Jesus submitting to Roman torture and crucifixion because he loved them so much.

I'm not even buying the Egyptian slavery story. There is no evidence for it. With that many involved and the exodus lasting 40 years there would have been some archeological evidence.

I don't try to make any sense out of it these days. It's all a crock. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, yet couldn't bother to write anything down and whose disciples apparently didn't understand him until Paul came along many years later, and the story finally gets committed to paper later yet in Greek?

Does. Not. Compute.

 

[hobelim]

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

That was borrowed heavily from Philo of Alexandria, who was instrumental in Hellinizing Jewish concepts.

Interesting.


When one considers the time of Egyptian slavery, Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests of the holy land one can understand why to Jesus , his disciples, and the authors of the gospels, 'the nations" were the enemy.

The story most certainly isn't about Jesus submitting to Roman torture and crucifixion because he loved them so much.

I'm not even buying the Egyptian slavery story. There is no evidence for it. With that many involved and the exodus lasting 40 years there would have been some archeological evidence.

I don't try to make any sense out of it these days. It's all a crock. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, yet couldn't bother to write anything down and whose disciples apparently didn't understand him until Paul came along many years later, and the story finally gets committed to paper later yet in Greek?

Does. Not. Compute.

lol... Of course it does not compute. And I understand not even wanting to try to make sense of it. I basically chalked it all off as an ancient crock of shit when I was still in grade school. I was born without the ability to set aside my own rational mind and 'just believe ' anything.

Then I tried another approach.

I began to see those contradictions as a giant X on a treasure map of sorts that indicates where something of great value is buried and hidden.

"The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it buried it again." matthew 13:44


Can you dig it?



Why not take another harder look. The book was never about historical accuracy.

Finding out what it is about amounts to gaining access to the tree of life.

If you don't look you will never find it.

 

[Iceweasel]

I thinks its not so much about circular reasoning as it is about failing to comprehend metaphors as difficult to decipher as a talking serpent, the word becoming flesh, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., and then, when corrected, lacking the moral and ethical substance to acknowledge error and adjust accordingly because he has a vested interest in perpetuating lies and keeping all those that he has misled over the years in the dark.


Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it for fear their practices should be shown up...... John 3:19

That was borrowed heavily from Philo of Alexandria, who was instrumental in Hellinizing Jewish concepts.

Interesting.


When one considers the time of Egyptian slavery, Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests of the holy land one can understand why to Jesus , his disciples, and the authors of the gospels, 'the nations" were the enemy.

The story most certainly isn't about Jesus submitting to Roman torture and crucifixion because he loved them so much.

I'm not even buying the Egyptian slavery story. There is no evidence for it. With that many involved and the exodus lasting 40 years there would have been some archeological evidence.

I don't try to make any sense out of it these days. It's all a crock. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, yet couldn't bother to write anything down and whose disciples apparently didn't understand him until Paul came along many years later, and the story finally gets committed to paper later yet in Greek?

Does. Not. Compute.

lol... Of course it does not compute. And I understand not even wanting to try to make sense of it. I basically chalked it all off as an ancient crock of shit when I was still in grade school. I was born without the ability to set aside my own rational mind and 'just believe ' anything.

Then I tried another approach.

I began to see those contradictions as a giant X on a treasure map of sorts that indicates where something of great value is buried and hidden.

"The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it buried it again." matthew 13:44


Can you dig it?



Why not take another harder look. The book was never about historical accuracy.

If you don't look you will never find it.

I don't get your point. Sure there are good life lessons in the stories. People were probably more philosophical in the past than now with all the mindless distractions. Nothing supernatural about it though.

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus replied to the devil, " Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."

Manna from heaven, the food of angels, is a metaphor for teaching from God.

Jesus himself established that bread is figurative for teaching in Matthew 16:11, 12..

"Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

"He who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Its not a caution about eating bread unworthily, its about failing to comprehend that bread = flesh = teaching.

Why is it a caution?


What is the consequence for perjuring yourself in the name of God?

What is the consequence for misleading others?

What is the consequence for desecrating the body of Christ?

take your time.............

Here we are again. With some, everything is metaphor! (Reminds me of a line from the Lion King. )

As explained, metaphor does not work for me. Faith does. One thing we might try in our effort to find common ground is that Catholicism teaches Communion as a sacrament. A sacrament is defined as, "The visible signs of the invisible reality." I'm thinking that this may help you, a metaphor thinker, understand the other way of thinking. "Metaphor" and "Invisible Reality" may be fairly close in definition.

In Baptism, water is the visible sign of the invisible cleansing of our soul. Anointing with oil is the visible sign of this soul being dedicated to God, a member of the Body of Christ. If you can see all this as metaphor, then I'm thinking it's not that great of leap to see the visible signs of the invisible reality.

In the same way, the bread and wine are the visible signs of the invisible reality, that Christ offers himself to us, body, blood, soul, and divinity. It is God, nourishing us with Himself. In Catholic worship, we begin with the Liturgy of the Word. This leads into the Liturgy of the Eucharist (communion). As you point out, the Word is nourishing in itself. In Catholic thought, the Word is not the only gift we were given, but also a gift of infinite magnitude. Can you understand why some choose reality over metaphor?

 

[Meriweather]

All the writings are made up by men. There were many books and a committee selected the ones to include in defining their religion, as requested by the emperor.

Your studies are nothing more than circular reasoning, it's true because it's written an it's written because it's true. That's not rational and dismissing any and all objections doesn't make your case.

Sure, because math and science books (as well as the Bible) were written by men. By definition, all studies are circular reasoning. (Think of simple math and the order of operations.) Where we break out of the circle, whether it be in math, science, or theology is when we close the book and begin applying and testing it in real life situations.

I understand some feel that the Bible failed them when they applied it to their real life situations. For many other, it opened doors. The advanced mathematics door did not open for me. Yet, I've never felt compelled to go on Internet forums and insist, that because the math door did not open for me, it can't open for anyone. So the theology door doesn't open for some. Why the need, when it doesn't open, to try to nail it shut, block it off, and stand in the way of others? Let people explore. Let all doors be open. People can tell me about math and science; I can tell about theology and grammar.