|
But surely it is the complete and literal truth?
Or am I wrong to think that this is The Word Of God?
Perhaps it is merely some bronze age scribblings by peasants on a Levantine hill that has been hastily bound together and edited by those in power to ensure the continuance of their superior places in society and to engender fear and an understanding of authority over those they would wish to rule?
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Perhaps it is merely some bronze age scribblings by peasants on a Levantine hill
that has been hastily bound together and edited by those in power to ensure the
continuance of their superior places in society and to engender fear and an
understanding of authority over those they would wish to rule?
...and Jeresy Shore may be written and directed by coke heads who are planning to rig the US election by dulling the American psyche with mindless drivel. Whatever their evil intent, I still don't think the show is meant for me to pattern my own life against.
The authors, the purpose, and other objections you raised don't change the fact that reading a historical account as a directive for how one should behave is a mis-use of the text, regardless of it's provenance. Sometimes the telling of a story is to warn people on how NOT to behave.
In short, if you're going to be a skeptic at least do a good job at it. 
|
|
|
|
|
If the Bible is the literal word of god then not only is it inconsistent, but most people who claim to follow it do not (complete adherence is impossible anyway due to the inconsistencies).
If it isn't the literal word of god then all aspects of it are open to personal interpretation, from picking out which bits you want to follow, up to complete rejection.
|
|
|
|
|
viaducting wrote: If the Bible is the literal word of god then not only is it inconsistent,
but most people who claim to follow it do not (complete adherence is impossible
anyway due to the inconsistencies).
One thing the Bible claims is that nobody lives without sin. That aside, reading your post kind of caused me to think some interesting things about the whole issue. I'm amazed at the pre-emminance of the Bible in these discussions, rather than the subject of the Bible. For me, it's a reminder of how off the rails American fundamentalism is at this time.
viaducting wrote: If it isn't the literal word of god then all aspects of it are open to
personal interpretation, from picking out which bits you want to follow, up to
complete rejection.
I think even if it is the literal word of God that the option for rejection is still on the table.
|
|
|
|
|
The inconsistency lies with mankind, simplest explanation I’ve heard was put this way.
Old Testament: Documentation of thousands of years of man's inability to abide by God's law even as God demonstrated his powers directly. And prophecies of how God will fix this little issue of sin through a perfect sacrifice (which mankind cannot do)
New Testament: How the prophecies were fulfilled through God’s only son who was the perfect sacrifice. And guidance on how to live with the knowledge that we are not perfect, but we are forgiven because of his sacrifice.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos,
As a former Catholic, maybe I can shed some light on the communion subject.
Catholic doctrine teaches that when a priest consecrates the eucharist and wine, it physically becomes Jesus's body and blood. Because of this belief, if you're not Catholic, you would not understand/respect the communion process. Its my understanding that Catholics are the only religion that beleives that communion is physically Jesus's body.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
There lieth the rub. I do know and understand this, I also agree with it [in a symbolic rather than physical way] and accept it. I have discussed this with many priests and my understanding is acceptable to most of them.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that, and it makes no sense to me. I can sort of see how they could pretend that it becomes Jesus's body and blood in spirit, but physically? It's sort of easy to see that it's not the case..
I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it sounds is crazy. I have explained numerous to my Catholic friends why I am no longer catholic. When I explain the cannobolism to them, they just shrug it off or ignore it. Funny thing is that the thought disturbs most of them, but none of them choose to do anything about it.
I think many Catholics think its crazy too, but are too scared of change!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Doesnt cannibalism rely on Jesus being Human? surely if he was just in human form then he was fair game for a meal
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
He's wrong: Accidentally[^] it remains bread and wine. The substance[^] changes, at least according to catholic doctrine.
I always found it hard to get my head around this split, it comes from Aristotle and he used it to try and explain change. If you take an iron ingot and cast it into an axe-head you've changed many of the accidents of the ingot, principally the shape, but not the accident it is iron. The substance (what it "is") has changed from an ingot to an axe-head. Equally there are many pens of various shapes and sizes (differing accidents) but all are substantially pens. This is all closely related to ontology and is odd to modern people as the idea of substance has largely been abandonded. It got into Catholicism via Thomas Aquinas, before that there was a neo-platonist view which was supported by Augustine of Hippo IIRC.
I had a catholic girlfriend for a while, she actually thought it materially changed into flesh when it was absorbed into the gut which is why it didn't look like blood and guts after consecration.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, but now I'm even more confused.
|
|
|
|
|
Father Ted said: That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what its really all about.
Not surprised, I only have a basic understanding of idea of the Accident/Substance thing & I'm not even sure that's right. It looks wrong: for one thing (in my example) how do we distinguish between an axe-head and an ingot. The substance (i.e. what an axe head is) must exist separate to actual axe-heads. Compounding this is what is the arbiter of what an axe head actually is. we'd probably describe something similar, but imagine a flint or bronze-age axe and they look quite different. Explaining the function wouldn't work either: some chop wood, some were used as weapons and some were used to kill wounded horses. It all rapidly breaks down into the meanings of words. Well beyond my little brain.
|
|
|
|
|
The "Substance/Accidentals" (a.k.a. Trans-substantiation) is generally acknowledged as an inadaquate description, but the best one so far (unfortunately).
There are no scriptural references indicating how Jesus would change bread and wine into His Body and Blood. But, I believe that many (most?) Christian denominations accept that it does/did happen, at least at the Last Supper when Jesus, himself, said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood, and there's no indication there that the appearance of the bread and wine changed.
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of a story (W932[^]):
Quote: Abba Theodore the Asian, formerly a grazer in the Jordanian desert, said: "I was at Latros, a mountain in Asia, when the Slavs came to a village and entered the church. They scoffed at the priest who would not give them the sacrament and at his belief that it did not break down in the stomach. So they made him eat all the eucharistic bread, then cut him open. They found nothing."
|
|
|
|
|
it physically becomes Jesus's body and blood. Because of this belief, if you're not Catholic, you would not understand/respect the communion process. Its my understanding that Catholics are the only religion that beleives that communion is physically Jesus's body.
And that's why i'm atheist. Doesn't feel like cannibalism is right every f****** sunday. 
btw:
i converted to atheism when i was 18. i had my communion.
Hmm i wonder why its doing that......ARGHS NO STOP, ROLLBACK ROLLBACK...F*** That's how i learned to "Always Backup"!!
Dogs are man's best Friend,
Cats are man's adorable little serial killer
|
|
|
|
|
So a Dead Jesus rises from the dead, hungry for brains, and gets his followers to become cannibals.
Then he disappears in a puff of smoke and leaves some post it notes laying around on how to behave in a 1st century way despite us living in an ever changing universe?
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I had to give you a +5 because of the post-it-notes.
|
|
|
|
|
That's like saying "I read Jo Bickerby's 'Tinkering with wires and stuff', why do you deny me tenure as professor of theoretical electrochromodynamics?"
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: why do most Catholic priests refuse to give me communion?
Because you're past puberty and may fight back?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
