Christians: What line are you unwilling to cross for God?

[Catholic_Lady]

For what it is worth, we certainly don't consider communion to be cannibalism. And we oppose cannibalism.

It is true that we believe Jesus is physically present in the eucharist in a way that is not fully understood (hence why we refer to this as a great mystery). But it is, nonetheless, in the form of a wafer or bread... not raw human meat.

Thanks for answering, though.

It’s worth absolutely nothing that you would consider what you believe to be the eating of human flesh to not be cannibalism.   The meaning of cannibalism is defined by the dictionary, not your doctrine nor personal cognitive dissonance.

I agree. Which is why I found it strange for an atheist who certainly doesn't believe the eucharist is anything other than an ordinary cracker, to consider it cannibalism.

Since I'm sure he doesn't think Jesus is physically present in the eucharist in any way, I assumed he was referring to it being crude for us Catholics to do something we consider cannibalism. ....But we in fact don't consider it cannibalism. Which is what I was telling him. And he doesn't either. So I'm not sure why he's so disturbed by communion being cannibalism, when neither one of us believes it is.

---

For what it is worth, we certainly don't consider communion to be cannibalism. And we oppose cannibalism.

It is true that we believe Jesus is physically present in the eucharist in a way that is not fully understood (hence why we refer to this as a great mystery). But it is, nonetheless, in the form of a wafer or bread... not raw human meat.

Thanks for answering, though.

You are being disingenuous.

As a former catholic, it IS ritual cannibalism.  Trying to pretend it isn't is dishonest.

If that is what you thought, then you were a rather ignorant Catholic: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...-cannibals

As I said. We do not consider it cannibalism.

---

^in case you didnt click, here is an excerpt:

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

[Abaddon_ire]

You are being disingenuous.

As a former catholic, it IS ritual cannibalism.  Trying to pretend it isn't is dishonest.

If that is what you thought, then you were a rather ignorant Catholic: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...-cannibals

As I said. We do not consider it cannibalism.

---

^in case you didnt click, here is an excerpt:

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

Well done. You gullibly swallowed the RCC pretzel logic. Look at what you just cited.

It is really body and blood. No bread and wine remains. But it is really bread and wine.

That is just plain stupid.

[Catholic_Lady]

Listen, if it makes y'all feel good or whatever to claim we believe we are engaging in cannibalism, then go for it I suppose lol. I won't ruin your fun.

[The Grand Nudger]

Catholics are hilariously ignorant of their own churches dogma..something that the church itself never fails to whine about.  Because of this, confronted with their churches dogma, the catholics are compelled to reinterpret that dogma so that it accords with their initial and inaccurate beliefs. 

In sum, nobody believes in catholicism -less- than the fuckin catholics, lol.

It's not their fault, honestly. The church has been speaking out of both sides of it's mouth about so many things for so long, anybody with ears and a desire to believe would be hopelessly confused.

[mlmooney89]

Y'all the way I see it is although they are saying it is him he is god so bread can be him, it doesn't have to represent human meat because god isn't human. Yes Jesus was but for it to be "him" it doesn't have to be the human part of him. I can see the difference between "him feeding them with himself as their lord and his being" vs "Him giving them part of his body to devour" To me it's more of a metaphor mixed faith speech.

[The Grand Nudger]

The RCC maintains that jesus was fully human. As per the quoted segment already included, it's about his body and his blood and how the cracker and grape juice are transformed into their substance.

OFC it's metaphor, in reality, just as many other examples of ritual cannibalism are metaphor. The trouble is that the RCC maintains that it's not a metaphor..that it's magic, and that it's real. Mysteriously. Catholics might be offended at the notion that their priests are shamans on a stage in dresses shaking rattles, pretending to cast spells..but that's what they are, and they (the clergy and authority) make no bones about it.

[mlmooney89]

But with their faith magic it's no longer the body it's the... essence of him. They say it's literally him because it was him eh I dunno how to communicate this but to me I don't see it as a form of cannibalism because they aren't eating human meat they are eating part of a god which can be anything. Blood/wine are the same thing because he is in everything. I just think y'all are being a little hard on something that isn't on the same page.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not the essence, the substance...and it is the body, and the blood - not a cracker, not grape juice. 

Again, this is their official line..not mine.  I recognize that they are engaged in religious pageantry.  It's not being hard on a thing to call it what it is, no matter how cranky they get about being wrong about their own stupid religion, or how uncomfortable they are with having it's practices classified in the same way that any other religions would be.

Like I said, nobody believes in catholicism less than catholics..and I could probably add that nobody likes being made aware of that less than catholics, either. "How dare you tell me my religion!"

I'm not the one telling them, the RCC is..they're the ones who just don't want to listen anymore.. ask the RCC, lol.

[Angrboda]

Listen, if it makes y'all feel good or whatever to claim we believe we are engaging in cannibalism, then go for it I suppose lol. I won't ruin your fun.

We're not laughing at you for being a cannibal. We're laughing at you for being stupid enough to swallow the horseshit logic you quoted. Laugh that off if you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

Used to be you could just call it a Mystery™ and then burn anyone who asked further questions alive.  Strange how the Mystery™ didn't keep so well after they couldn't do that anymore.  Any given mass is a giant bundle of heresies today, minor and major..and there's nothing the clergy can do to stem the tide...with each individual catholic and their disparate beliefs confidently proclaiming that the contents of their own religion are "what the church teaches" even in contradiction to the churches own official positions...which they've never read.