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

[vorlon13]

Hmmm . . .


smells like Jesus






feels like Jesus






tastes like Jesus







Sure glad I didn't step in it.

[Abaddon_ire]

Are you claiming that the Vatican Catechism is wrong?


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

You are required to accept that as an article of your faith.

That's some real good a-la-carte catholicism you have going on there.

Yes, we are required to believe what you posted above. And I do believe it. Neither myself nor the Catholic source I posted denied any of it. I actually said as much on my post, and then the article I posted explained in detail exactly what you just posted above lol. So I'm not sure what you are going on about. But like I said, if you want to keep thinking we consider communion cannibalism, go for it. Knock yourself out.

Nope. What you do is engage in some pretzel logic to justify your beliefs. The source you posted stated that it really is the body and blood, but it isn't, but it is. And you agreed with that. All in a single paragraph. 

How anyone can accept such pretzel logic is beyond all rational thinking. But it gets worse. Not only are you prepared to accept such apologia, it's outright heresy according to your pope. So bad was that apologia that in 1968 Paul VI issued an encyclical on the matter wherein he specifically condemned exactly what your are doing as heresy.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/...erium.html

Where does that leave your apologia? You are no different than my ex. Contrary to the dogma, for example, she happily engaged in contraception and plenty of it. All the while going to mass while smiling out of two faces.

Thus it is with you. The goddamn pope tells you that you are flat out wrong and you simply ignore it and do your own damn thing.

You are, like she, a catholic in name only. A CINO if you will. The very epitome of a cafeteria catholic. Your whole schtick of "I am a catholic except for these bits" rings hollow.

[robvalue]

If I was raised Catholic and someone tried to "explain" that to me, I'd be like, "You've all had thousands of years to think about this, and this is the best you've got? It is and it isn't? I'm gonna go talk to the Mormons next, see if they can do better."

[Abaddon_ire]

If I was raised Catholic and someone tried to "explain" that to me, I'd be like, "You've all had thousands of years to think about this, and this is the best you've got? It is and it isn't? I'm gonna go talk to the Mormons next, see if they can do better."

Ah, but it's a "mystery". That explains everything, right?

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, we are required to believe what you posted above. And I do believe it. Neither myself nor the Catholic source I posted denied any of it. I actually said as much on my post, and then the article I posted explained in detail exactly what you just posted above lol. So I'm not sure what you are going on about. But like I said, if you want to keep thinking we consider communion cannibalism, go for it. Knock yourself out.

Nope. What you do is engage in some pretzel logic to justify your beliefs. The source you posted stated that it really is the body and blood, but it isn't, but it is. And you agreed with that, all in a single paragraph.

Did we read the same thing? What the source I posted for you said is that it IS the body of Christ, but in the form of bread. Meaning it still looks like and tastes like bread. Obviously there is nothing heretical about saying the eucharist tastes like/looks like bread lol. If you were Catholic once, you should know the eucharist looks like and tastes like a wafer, not human meat lol. As the article explained, this is why it isn't considered cannibalism. Because the body of Christ is still in the form of bread, rather than in the form of human meat.

---

.
I'll post the paragraph again, this time with the relevant part bolded for you:

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.

...as you can see, the paragraph I posted for you does very clearly say that we believe the eucharist is Jesus. Contrary to your accusations of heresy, there is no denying of that belief by myself nor the article I posted. The article I posted says exactly that. But then it simply goes on to explain that since it is still in the form of bread (meaning it looks/tastes like bread), it isn't cannibalism.

Here is the entire article again: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...-cannibals

(Edited for typos, clarification, etc)

[Abaddon_ire]

Yup. Pretzel logic. Read the popes encyclical. He says you are flat out wrong.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yup. Pretzel logic. Read the popes encyclical. He says you are flat out wrong.

Lol, wrong about what Abaddon? Are you saying the eucharist doesnt look/taste like bread? (In the form of it)

I don't understand what it is you claim I am saying that is contrary to the pope's encyclical.

[robvalue]

God isn't prepared to intervene to stop the suffering of innocents, or cure cancer, or bring about world peace; but he's happy to hang around churches turning bread into "Jesus but not really"

[Cecelia]

Followup question for CL, since she's actually being a pretty good sport about all of this rather than giving a non-answer:

Do you understand how others have a problem believing in this God given what the bible states about him? (For example, God says "Gay people are an abomination" and some people have trouble seeing this god as 'good' because of it. Whereas for you it might take "God says kill your children", it takes others less)

[Catholic_Lady]

Followup question for CL, since she's actually being a pretty good sport about all of this rather than giving a non-answer:

Do you understand how others have a problem believing in this God given what the bible states about him? (For example, God says "Gay people are an abomination" and some people have trouble seeing this god as 'good' because of it. Whereas for you it might take "God says kill your children", it takes others less)

Yeah, I can understand.

I think when it comes to understanding the bible, two things need to be kept in mind, 1. Context and 2. Entirety.

Context: While the bible was inspired by God, it was not written by Him. It was written by men. Men of thousands of years ago. I think the OT represents a time of God working through people to bring about a moral awakening. I also believe it was written allegorically. So while some of the stuff we read on there is unacceptable today, it was still a step up in morality for that time. We did evolve from monkeys, after all, and learning to act with morals and dignity rather than animalistic instincts was a process.

Entirety: You really have to think about the bible as a whole and its entire message. We can look through the pages and pick out lines that sound absurd (such as the "gays are an abomination"), but when you step back and consider the entire take away of the bible, I find it hard not to see a message of love. Particularly the life and teachings of Jesus, which is, after all, the main focal point for Christianity. Jesus, whom we believe actually IS God Himself, taught us to love everyone, even our enemies. He taught us not to judge. He spoke of forgiveness and mercy. He cured sick people and spoke out against the stoning of adulterers. He showed compassion to prostitutes and tax collectors and treated them like people.

When I think of God, I think of Jesus more than anything. Hopefully that all explains a little bit why I think God is good.