cannibalism and you (christianity)

[Pyrrho]

Both.

1. The crazy shit you believe isn't true.
2. Because you believe the crazy shit you do, you are therefore a cannibal. 

You're a credit to your species, you dense catholic you.

If the "crazy shit" we believe isn't true, then we're just eating bread and drinking wine...despite what we believe.

How does that make us cannibals? At best, it just makes us crazy...

Yes.  You are not really a cannibal.  You are just crazy and believe yourself to be a cannibal.  (Unless, of course, you are really eating human flesh on other occasions, in which case you are actually a cannibal.)

[Pyrrho]

If the "crazy shit" we believe isn't true, then we're just eating bread and drinking wine...despite what we believe.

How does that make us cannibals? At best, it just makes us crazy...

It is all about intent.

And if you have kids, you will tell them that they are eating blood and flesh.

He intends to be a cannibal, but he is not one (at least not from the traditional Eucharist ceremony; what he does at other times, I cannot say).

This is a bit like the difference between attempted murder and actual murder.  Merely attempting murder does not make one a murderer, just like attempting to fly does not make one a flier.

But his intent does tell us about his morality, and morally, it is the same whether he succeeds or not.

[Jackalope]

Randy, did you happen to hear a "whoosh" as something sailed over your head?

If you think that I have missed something, CD, please explain it to me.

In actual fact, the OP charges us with something that is, according to atheist beliefs, not technically possible.

So why the silly thread? (Other than the gratuitous drumbeat of anti-Catholicism, of course.)

What you've missed is the logical consequences of certain beliefs, and the cognitive juggling act required to reconcile them.

Of course we don't believe it - the whole point is to highlight the incoherence of what *you* believe. The whole concept of transubstatiation is fucking bugshit crazy, doubly so when you deny the logical implications and construct these apologetics to shield yourselves from cognitive dissonance.

I realize you're going to handwave all of this away, and if that's what it takes for you to sleep at night, knock yourself out.

Put another way - do you remember that wacky Heaven's Gate cult that offed itself years back? Remember how bizarre their beliefs seemed? Well, they've got nothing on Catholicism.

But hey, keep up with the apologetics - you're doing more for atheism than you realize.

[Jackalope]

If the "crazy shit" we believe isn't true, then we're just eating bread and drinking wine...despite what we believe.

How does that make us cannibals? At best, it just makes us crazy...

Yes.  You are not really a cannibal.  You are just crazy and believe yourself to be a cannibal.  (Unless, of course, you are really eating human flesh on other occasions, in which case you are actually a cannibal.)

More correctly, he believes himself to be doing that thing that would make him a cannibal, whilst simultaneously believing that doing that thing in fact would not make him a cannibal.

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  You are not really a cannibal.  You are just crazy and believe yourself to be a cannibal.  (Unless, of course, you are really eating human flesh on other occasions, in which case you are actually a cannibal.)

More correctly, he believes himself to be doing that thing that would make him a cannibal, whilst simultaneously believing that doing that thing in fact would not make him a cannibal.

Yes.  That point was made in an earlier post which I did not repeat in the post you quoted.  But you do state it better anyway.

[Randy Carson]

Exactly.

So, either all that we believe MUST be true to enable us to eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood OR the charge of cannibalism is simply empty rhetoric.

Which is it?

Not quite.  You are not a cannibal (at least not from the traditional Eucharist; what you do at other times I cannot say).  But it is not merely "empty rhetoric" to call you a cannibal.  You would be a cannibal if your doctrine of Transubstantiation were true.  You believe yourself to be a cannibal.  Though, of course, you may not accept that term, as many people say all sorts of things and then insist that the terms that accurately apply to them, do not apply to them.  Oftentimes, people misuse words.

If the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, then Catholics would be cannibals.

That does not follow.

Not only is it silly to call us cannibals based on what you believe to be true about the Eucharist, it is silly to call us cannibals based on what WE believe about the Eucharist, as well.



Why not simply admit that in their eagerness to make Christians look foolish, sometimes ignorant atheists say things that have the opposite effect?

[dyresand]

Not quite.  You are not a cannibal (at least not from the traditional Eucharist; what you do at other times I cannot say).  But it is not merely "empty rhetoric" to call you a cannibal.  You would be a cannibal if your doctrine of Transubstantiation were true.  You believe yourself to be a cannibal.  Though, of course, you may not accept that term, as many people say all sorts of things and then insist that the terms that accurately apply to them, do not apply to them.  Oftentimes, people misuse words.

If the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, then Catholics would be cannibals.

That does not follow.

Not only is it silly to call us cannibals based on what you believe to be true about the Eucharist, it is silly to call us cannibals based on what WE believe about the Eucharist, as well.



Why not simply admit that in their eagerness to make Christians look foolish, sometimes ignorant atheists say things that have the opposite effect?

Well let's see
John 6:55 - For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drin

So every Sunday i am guessing you go and near the end you get the little bit of cracker and water and you 
are a metaphorically cannibal eating and drinking his blood and such. so yeah you are a cannibal a metaphorical cannibal.
Good thing the the bible didn't say drink of the seed of man     

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If you think that I have missed something, CD, please explain it to me.

In actual fact, the OP charges us with something that is, according to atheist beliefs, not technically possible.

So why the silly thread? (Other than the gratuitous drumbeat of anti-Catholicism, of course.)

What you've missed is the logical consequences of certain beliefs, and the cognitive juggling act required to reconcile them.

Of course we don't believe it - the whole point is to highlight the incoherence of what *you* believe.  The whole concept of transubstatiation is fucking bugshit crazy, doubly so when you deny the logical implications and construct these apologetics to shield yourselves from cognitive dissonance.

I realize you're going to handwave all of this away, and if that's what it takes for you to sleep at night, knock yourself out.

Put another way - do you remember that wacky Heaven's Gate cult that offed itself years back?  Remember how bizarre their beliefs seemed?  Well, they've got nothing on Catholicism.

But hey, keep up with the apologetics - you're doing more for atheism than you realize.

To summarize, all humans are batshit crazy about something.

[Spooky]

To summarize, all humans are batshit crazy about something.

One of the most accurate things I've read in awhile.

Some of us are just a little more guano than others.

[Pyrrho]

---

Not quite.  You are not a cannibal (at least not from the traditional Eucharist; what you do at other times I cannot say).  But it is not merely "empty rhetoric" to call you a cannibal.  You would be a cannibal if your doctrine of Transubstantiation were true.  You believe yourself to be a cannibal.  Though, of course, you may not accept that term, as many people say all sorts of things and then insist that the terms that accurately apply to them, do not apply to them.  Oftentimes, people misuse words.

If the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, then Catholics would be cannibals.

That does not follow.

Not only is it silly to call us cannibals based on what you believe to be true about the Eucharist,

---

it is silly to call us cannibals based on what WE believe about the Eucharist, as well.

---

Why not simply admit that in their eagerness to make Christians look foolish, sometimes ignorant atheists say things that have the opposite effect?

---

On the contrary, it is silly for you to say that you are not a cannibal, based on the belief that the bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus.  If the bread and wine did that and you ate it, you would be a cannibal.  That follows directly from the definition of "cannibal."

Here is the definition from your link:

The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.

That exactly describes what the Eucharist ceremony would be if the bread and wine were really the flesh and blood of Jesus.

In other words, you ought to own the idea that you are a cannibal, and be proud of it.  Instead, you say bullshit nonsense about it, trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What you have done is take a position that is wrong no matter what the truth is.  If the bread and wine do not change, then you are wrong to say that they do.  And if they do change, then you are wrong to say that you are not a cannibal.  So no matter what the truth is, you are wrong.  One has to be very, very wrong to manage a position in which one is wrong no matter what the truth is.  Congratulations!