I just felt like bringing up a little ignunt absurdity today.
This passage in the book of Mathew is a little odd. I know Jesus doesn’t literally hand his disciples a hunk of his body, or a glass of his blood, at least in the modern day versions of the story (or does he?); they’re just representations of flesh and blood. But what if he actually did hand them some skin and blood? Would really blood have been better or more effective? Would people have disapproved of the passage if it had been literal blood and flesh?
If if would have been so bad to eat his actual flesh and blood, then why are they eating a representation of something that normally would have been bad? It would be like Jews eating a pig shaped thing of tofu (sort of).
What if the disciples had chopped up Jesus after he was removed from his death tree and distributed evenly to all whom wanted him as his lord and savior? People are ok with drinking a representation of his blood, but i don’t believe for a second anyone would have the hutsbah to drink any amount of his actual blood. It just sounds like hypocrisy to me. If you would drink his blood please correct me.
Hah, I’ve never really considered how weird that really is, but hell, it’s a step up from burning your kids alive to appease the gods, or tearing out a man’s beating heart. See, we’re making progress!
Thats really not the point. The point here is that people are meant to believe that the substance that they are ultimatly consuming is the same as, if not exactly equal to, if not literally from, his body and blood. Sure its obvious that eventually the source of flesh and blood would dwindle, thereby necessitating transubstantiation, to create a never ending source of Jesus meat. But even so, the issue extends beyond that.
At communion, Christians are lead to believe that Jesus meat is entering their bodies. If that’s not cannibalism, i don’t know what is. Of course you can cop out of the argument and say “well it really isn’t his body, its a little cracker that’s meant to represent his body.” Well that still doesn’t solve the issue of why people are even TRYING to eat his body in the first place. You can’t be and NOT be eating his body at the same time. If transubstantiation really works, then cracker > transubstantiation > Jesus meat > dinner. If transubstantiation doesn’t work, then you’re just eating a cracker. Which is it Christians??
We’re eating Jesus’s flesh and drink his blood, yes.
I don’t accept the communion as symbolism because it is not, it is the actual body and blood of Christ. Only we see the bread and wine as accidents.
No, it will not dwindle. It is NOT “physically present” which might mean like we are taking a finger or some other part of His body. It IS in fact “sacramentally present”. When we partake in Holy communion we are aware of our union with Him in a physical way because of the physical apperances of bread and wine, we are also aware of our union with Him in a spiritual way because it of its sacramental properties.
And no it is not cannibalism. The sensible characteristic of the human body is absent, even its spatiality. The sensible substance alone (i.e. bread and wine) is received. If receiving the body and blood of Christ still make the word cannibalism linger in your mind may I remind you that personal distaste is not a good criterion by which we judge divine revelation. You see, to be “in Christ” and “members of His body” is more than a methapor.
The whole experience of receiving the Communion is something mysterious, sacred and high-- if you want to drive this thread to paint Christians as savages then that’s just shameful.
And if you do read Church history the teaching on Communion had been maligned as cannibalism by the Romans and such simplistic caricature burned, crucified and fed to the lions countless believers.
If you have more question I will try to answer it as my capacity will warrant. If I cannot do it wait for it as I will ask some of the priests I know to simplify it for us.
Could you put the passages up that were before those and the ones after, please/ i do not have my bibles available and so i ca’t read the previous passages and the post passages, I do believe they will shed more light on the subject.
Kris, if you’re worried about context, don’t worry about the written stuff that’s been edited, re-edited and “translated” for 2000 years. Put it in the context that drinking even animal blood or any form of cannibalism (including symbolism/food sacrificed to idols) has been blasphemy for the last 3000 years, for run-of-the-mill Jews–much less ascetic Jews like John, Jesus an James.
Oh I know its all been edited to death. I am concerned about what lead up to it and what results were. Why choose those words? What was the end of it etc… You can only glean so much from a few passages. A passage a paragraph all are part of a chapter which is part of a book. To understand a small passage you need to understand the paragraph and to understand the paragraph you need to understand the chapter. etc.
At any rate, taking a passage out of context is not good debate in my opinion even though its done all the time. it does work though
I could write a whole paragraph and someone could yank a sentence out that says “I would kill him”. We know where that leads.
Is there a known reliable link to this chapter of the bible that we could work from?
Personaly I don’t give a damn about why people 2000 years ago “drank the blood of Jesus” or what ever the hell they did.
Transubstantiation is still around. People are transubstantiating wine into blood, and crackers into flesh. According to the practice, supposedly this actually happens. Ergo within the bubble of transubstantiation, anyone who partakes in either of these delicacies is a cannibal. If they really aren’t eating flesh and blood, then transubstantiation doesn’t work (this goes without saying), but this isn’t the point. The goal is to consume Jesus meat, regardless of the method and its efficacy.
If you accept and consume communion you are promoting cannibalism.
And the difference between you and any other base cannibal would be? (The question is rhetorical; the answer is, ‘nothing’!)
They have their ‘justifications’ also…
So ignorant, so ‘sick’… When will this sick superstitious ‘meme’ die a well deserved death!
As war trophies, as an act of superiority, as an act of physical survival, as an insult.
And what do you observe in the rite of Communion in let’s say Catholicism. Do we blaspheme, curse
or spit? Do we claim that we claim a god as a captive because we eat his flesh?
Nameless your failure to distinguish is entertaining. There are many fundamental difference in cannibalism and Communion. There are also the ‘mysteries’ that comes along with it.
The reality of the Communion is not an easy thing to chew on, especially with an anti-Christian sentiment, don’t you think.
Well seeing you really don’t want to hear me out, and seeing you fail to distinguish the actual body of JC with a sacramental act in the Eucharist, and still seeing to fail to see the sanctity of the act, I must keep my silence.
But nice art though.
(Oh great , back to the catacombs I guess before you hunt us down)
It is interesting yes. Yet, it is one that my argument neither supports, nor substantiates.
Consumption of Eucharist is pseudo cannibalistic. Perhaps my sarcasm was not laid on thick enough and I apologize for any confusion. It is illogical to call it literal cannibalism because the Eucharist is not literally human flesh.
I’m not entirely sure what you are referring to by your Hannibal Lecter reference, but I think (correct me if I’m wrong) what you are insinuating is that since Hannibal is a cannibal, and since Communion is cannibalistic, and since communion is a church thing, that somehow Hannibal was supported, endorsed, or funded by the church. That logic doesn’t follow. Just because he was a cannibal does not mean that the church would have endorsed it OR the movie because of the cannibalism.
It has nothing to do with sanctity. If transubstantiation does not turn the Eucharist into Jesus meat, then what happens? Is transubstantiation intended for the transformation of non-Jesus meat, into Jesus meat or not?
If I had a ritual that transubstantiated cherry coke into baby blood, i bet you’d raise an eyebrow. The question from me would be would you raise it at the fact that I’m trying to turn it into baby blood and that’s just sick and twisted? Or would your eyebrow raise because I’m attempting to defy known laws of physics? I truly hope its both.
In order for transsubstantiation to make any sense, the notion of hypostasis has to be understood. In all honesty, I don’t fully understand either, but even my limited understanding of them allows me to distinguish between the old slander that Christians are cannibals and the notion that Christians ritualistically eat their god who is also a person.
Confusing, yeah. Like I said, I can’t fully wrap my head around it. But then again, part of mystery religions is that they are, ahem, “mysterious”.
COP OUT!!! Sorry but it is. Homeopathy is mysterious, but only because the reason why people buy into it is a mystery. Same goes for acupuncture, Scientology, ralianism, and republicanism.
Yes I know the fallacy on the Hannibal part though it was intended not as a serious query.
Now I ask is the baby, whose blood you drink, a god? Does the cherry coke turn into material and formal specie of a human blood?
To answer Xunx, yes hypostasis is a very hard concept and I am no expert in the sacramental theology of this and that, and even within Christianity there are disputes on some theologies (though I do subscribe under the Roman bishop). I am quite well versed on Canon law regarding the sacraments so I would at least have an inkling on the rules set.
Veering away from the topic, Xunx, do know any good translation of the Vedas with commentary I hope .
Having something in common does not mean it is the same, isn’t it?
We know where that leads.
