Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Virgin Mary

bcuster said:
It is not an outlandish claim.. The dogma rests at the core of Catholicism.. You are correct; it is a point of deep disagreement in many of the Reformed Reformed Reformed Protestant churches

It is interesting to note that Luther fully accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation
Click to expand...
Well, at least your post made me chuckle.
 
PTK said:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the wine and the bread consumed in Communion literally changes into the blood and flesh of Jesus.

Many people were tortured, and many killed, in defence of this apparent misunderstanding of a metaphor. The lesson of which, I suppose, is that metaphors are dangerous. They don’t teach you that is school English lessons.

It is generous to call it a “misunderstanding”. Making an outlandish claim is a technique used by dictatorships (in which category I am placing monarchies) to secure subservience. The subjects hear the outrageous claim, and their reason revolts against it, but they are forced to acquiesce in the claim, at threat of violence. They are then psychologically broken, and accept the rule of the dictatorship. Members of out groups will ridicule the claim, and this ridicule will make members of the in group feel closer. The root of the word “religion” after all is “to bind”.

Another outlandish claim, the reaction of others to which acts to bind group more closely, is that blood transfusions are harmful and must never ever take place, which is a doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses church.

The Stalin regime in the former USSR made a number of outlandish claims that served a similar purpose.
Click to expand...

A lot of the stuff in the Scriptures (eg the Creation story) should be read as a metaphor rather than the literal truth.

But the consecrated wine and the bread consumed in Communion changing into the blood and flesh of Jesus isn't a metaphor for Catholics, it's believed as a literal truth.

The doctrine of transubstantiation in effect says that believers engage in an act of cannibalism every Sunday.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't.
 
bcuster said:
It is not an outlandish claim.. The dogma rests at the core of Catholicism.. You are correct; it is a point of deep disagreement in many of the Reformed Reformed Reformed Protestant churches

It is interesting to note that Luther fully accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation
Click to expand...
You’re well obsessed with Luther and Cromwell. It might be worth you reflecting on the fact that you are WAY closer to Luther and Cromwell than I am. From where I’m sitting, you basically believe in the same thing. You believe the same stories about the same people. You believe in the divinity of the same man, who is some kind of avatar of the same god. I don’t believe in any of that. Not a single word of it. I think the entire thing is made up. Your arguments with Luther about the fine details are, to me, like Tolkien nerds arguing about what kind of swords the orcs used.
 
kabbes said:
You’re well obsessed with Luther and Cromwell. It might be worth you reflecting on the fact that you are WAY closer to Luther and Cromwell than I am. From where I’m sitting, you basically believe in the same thing. You believe the same stories about the same people. You believe in the divinity of the same man, who is some kind of avatar of the same god. I don’t believe in any of that. Not a single word of it. I think the entire thing is made up. Your arguments with Luther about the fine details are, to me, like Tolkien nerds arguing about what kind of swords the orcs used.
Click to expand...
Flat earther
 
Humberto said:
To be honest I don't think there is anything in them. I've been coming around to non-belief too.
Click to expand...

Also, as am sure you well know - non belief doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe that, say, Jesus or Mary didn't exist.

Just that the magic surrounding them is up for questioning.

Tbf, am a believer that there was an historical Jesus/ Joshua... who meant well and was a rebel... just that he didn't have superpowers.
 
Ephesians 6:5 says “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” {Adopts “Mrs Merton” tone of voice} Why would the Emperor of an Empire of which slavery was a key component want to adopt a religion that said such things? It may be argued that that was Paul, and not Jesus, but then the question has to be asked: Why are the writings of Paul in the Bible? Perhaps it would might be better to call it Paulianity.
 
If the claim that wine and bread transforms into the blood and flesh of your god is not outlandish, then I do not know what is. To claim that you literally drink the blood and eat the flesh of your god is macabre. I do not know of any other religion in which the adherents eat their god every week.
 
PTK said:
If the claim that wine and bread transforms into the blood and flesh of your god is not outlandish, then I do not know what is. To claim that you literally drink the blood and eat the flesh of your god is macabre. I do not know of any other religion in which the adherents eat their god every week.
Click to expand...
Most, if not all of the early Protestants were ok with the dogma. Zwingli changed all that.
 
andysays said:
A lot of the stuff in the Scriptures (eg the Creation story) should be read as a metaphor rather than the literal truth.

But the consecrated wine and the bread consumed in Communion changing into the blood and flesh of Jesus isn't a metaphor for Catholics, it's believed as a literal truth.



No, it really doesn't.
Click to expand...
I know it is not a metaphor for the Roman Catholic Church, but I am claiming that it is a metaphor in the Bible.

I thought that cannibalism was defined as eating the flesh of a person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flavour
all that guff about mary bein a virgin her whole life
Replies
17
Views
2K
goldenecitrone
goldenecitrone
Back
Top Bottom