The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Transubstantiation: Is this not ritualistic cannibalism?

With magic words, a sip of wine and a nibble of cracker, Catholics believe that they are consuming the blood and flesh of their Zombie Boy, but is that not just ritualistic cannibalism? I will point out that I feel that I'm giving them the benefit of the don't think by saying "Ritualistic", as the reality of the literal changing of some wine and a cracker into the real flesh and blood of some dead guy is soooo absurd. If they were really changing. with magic words, the cracker and wine into Zombie Boy's flesh and blood, they would be practising cannibals, would they not?
So, what ya think?

Tags: Catholicism, religion, transubstantiation

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on September 9, 2008 at 7:44pm

Yes, they would be. Most churches, such as the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, the Eastern Orthodox Church and so forth -- just about any mainstream denomination -- accept a more refined view, that is, that Jesus is spiritually present in some real way. Catholics still cling to their literal view of it, so I don't know how they convince themselves it isn't cannibalism....I wonder how many Catholics truly believe there is a real change?

James

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Rex on September 10, 2008 at 12:46am

Ya ever try pointing out to a Catholic that it's ritualistic cannibalism? If you do, I would advise you to duck very quickly, 'couse there's a punch coming real quick! Their denial of the reality of their practise is just as quick. But then again, honesty has never been the Catholic's style...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Rex on September 10, 2008 at 12:54am

I didn't say it was cannibalism. I said RITUALISTIC cannibalism. In the first, people actually consume the dead, usually as a form of honouring their dead relative/friend. With the latter, it is the belief that they are consuming the real body of the deceased, even though they are not, by transforming symbolic food items with magic words, etc., into the flesh and blood of the dead.
Ya, kinda sick, to say the least...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wolf Martinus on September 10, 2008 at 3:09am

It's just a cracker. Attaching any more (real / ritualistic / whatever) meaning to the act of eating something that is best used to keep macaroons from sticking to the baking tray is only encuraging them and playing their game. I refuse to do that. It's just a cracker. Full Stop.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Undo on September 10, 2008 at 8:43am

A lot/most of them believe that it is really the body of christ. Look at the whole incident with the student stealing the eucharist. Cannibalism indeed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on September 10, 2008 at 11:53am

I have to ask:

Does the "body, blood, soul, and divinity" of Christ contain fiber?

I mean if it does then nature must take it's course and it must reach the large intestine and...

You see where I'm going here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 10, 2008 at 3:58pm

On second thought, even if it was Christ's body and blood, it certainly wouldn't be like any real human body -- it appears and tastes like bread and wine. So maybe it wouldn't be quite cannibalism.

But yeah, it's just a cracker and wine. No change is apparent.

James

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 10, 2008 at 3:58pm

Paul, they saw that one coming. As soon as the bread and wine no longer *appear* to exist (remember, they believe it has become Christ), it is no longer the body and blood of Jesus.

James

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Undo on September 11, 2008 at 9:19am

A lot of this crap reminds me of pagan rituals. Oh wait, that's because most of it came from early religions like paganism. Read Leviticus in the OT - lots of instructions for sacraficing animals. Funny stuff.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Rex on September 11, 2008 at 1:03pm

I don't think you have to read very far into the old testament before you find sacrificial instruction, and I mean the Cain and Able story. But if you check who would have been the Hebrew Tribes neighbours, like the Hittites, you notice that the Jews were nomadic herders, and their neighbours were primarily agriculturalists. So simply put, the Cain and Able story was one of conflict between farmers and herders, and herders would probably had their animals trampling the farmer's crops, pissing off the farmer, and resulting in their retaliation against the herder.
The god of the Jews loved their blood sacrifices, and there is some evidence of the Hebrews practising cannibalism and human sacrifice to their god. It's always bugged me how the bible instructs how to sacrifice lambs, and referring to the followers of their god as "Lambs of God". Kinda makes you wounder...