It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
exactly what was your purpose in choosing to focus only on the Catholic Church?


My knowledge of the Catholic Church is much greater than my knowledge of other Christian Churches. I thought it best to stick to what I know.


Which is fair enough.




I was talking about your opening statement.


In the post you are quoting from I stated: "My opening statement was my opinion derived through observation" (Please 'read' before you post!)


That goes for both of us. You brought in your entire post as proof of your questions. I never spoke about your entire post, as I stated.



I suppose I could lead a horse to water, but how does that tie in with the subject of this thread? Please educate me. lol


"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." That couldn't possibly be an Australian-only wisdom.




Whose coat-tails would they be?


Aelita, of course.


You'll know when I'm riding someone else's coattails because you'll see me say things like "I agree".



I've nothing against learning, but I am picky when it comes to the choice of my potential teachers.
How's my grammar, by the way? (be gentle)


Fine by me, so far. Teaching ESL students taught me (some, limited) patience. I only focus on grammar (on the net) when it makes things unclear. Or when people type in their own language and hit "translate". Translation programmes from anything other than German or Dutch don't work because they only translate words, not grammar.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." That couldn't possibly be an Australian-only wisdom.


I agree. (Oh....., I'm sorry. Am I standing on your coat?)
I'm sure it couldn't possibly be an Aussie only saying.
By the way, I was JOKING.
And no, I wont give up the day job.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by point]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The key words in the original post is 'symbolic cannibalism'.
The wafer represents/symbolises the 'Body of Christ' as the priest (and often his assistants) repeatedly declare to each parishoner just before they consume.

This ritual is considered an important part of a Catholic Church Mass, as well as various other Christian Masses.

In whatever light one chooses to view this ritual, it remains symbolic cannibalism.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Hasn't this dead horse been beaten to death? Have you anything new to add or are you just going to keep saying that?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
i was a cannibal for years and i didn't even realize it!

anti-catholicism is one of the oldest prejudices in the united states.

please, stop spreading the bigotry people



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i was a cannibal for years and i didn't even realize it!


I was a witness and a participant in this symbolic cannibalism ritual for many years and didn't even realize it.
Religious dogma fed to me throughout my formative years through church and school saw to that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
Religious dogma fed to me throughout my formative years through church and school saw to that.


Yeah, me too. But then I grew up, threw the baby out with thte bathwater, then one day decided to really study the Catholic faith on my own. The Catholic school gave me nothing but dogma, but I finally found there was a very rich and deep spirituality I had missed.

I can only tell you this, if you are going to blame the people who fell short in telling you the whole story, that may be your loss. It's not for everyone, but most people who criticize the Catholic church do not know it through no fault of their own - to a point.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Yeah, me too. But then I grew up, threw the baby out with thte bathwater, then one day decided to really study the Catholic faith on my own. The Catholic school gave me nothing but dogma, but I finally found there was a very rich and deep spirituality I had missed.


I obviously have come to a different conclusion to you after studying the Catholic Churchs' beliefs, dogma and it's history from a more objective point of view in my later years.
For me to even contemplate really questioning any of it's teachings whilst being subject to the constant barrage of dogma during my formative years was virtually impossible. I equated god as inseperable from church. Who would dare question God's Church?
I simply believed what I was told and I suppose it appeared to make some sort of sense because at the time there was no alternative view point to challenge these beliefs in my then, limited frame of reference.

Later, I really began to think about the big questions, Who are we?, Why are we here?, Where are we going?, What's it all mean?, on my own terms free from parroted religious dogma.

I researched different spiritual and religious belief systems and their corresponding histories including Catholicism.
In doing so any lingering remnant of adherance to Church dogma dissapated especially when the actions and atrocities of its past were revealed to me.
I saw its true face.
The church is far removed from the True God despite it's claims.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Why has no-one offered the most obvious counter argument, as Jesus is considered to be the son of G-D, part Human and part G-D, would eating his body be considered cannibalism? He isnt even part of the same species?

en.wikipedia.org...


exterior quote:

Cannibalism is the act or practice of eating members of one's own species and usually refers to humans eating other humans (sometimes called anthropophagy)



so would transubstantiation even be considered as the bread and wine becoming human fllesh and blood, or eating part of the divine?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by theyrewatchingme
Why has no-one offered the most obvious counter argument, as Jesus is considered to be the son of G-D, part Human and part G-D, would eating his body be considered cannibalism? He isnt even part of the same species?



Actually, I brought this up earlier in the thread, but point just keeps repeating his dogma anyway.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I believe that Christ is often shown on the cross so that whenever people see a crucifix they remember what christ went through for us.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyrewatchingme
Why has no-one offered the most obvious counter argument, as Jesus is considered to be the son of G-D, part Human and part G-D, would eating his body be considered cannibalism? He isnt even part of the same species?


They have. I gave my reply on page 6.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Actually, I brought this up earlier in the thread, but point just keeps repeating his dogma anyway.


May I direct you to page Page 6 ?
So I take it you didn't see the logic in my reply.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
No Point, I didn't see the logic in it, as obviously you are blind to mine.

So what exactly do you want? There must be some goal here as you went out of your way to revive a dead thread that has already been discussed inside and out.

Do you expect us Catholics to see the errors of our ways? It won't happen on this one. You cannot fight matters of faith. Faith and dogma are something each individual must chose for themselves and the rest of us should respect. It's really not a debatable (if a debate requires a resolution) item.

Do you just want everyone else to see us the way you do? Well, you might succeed there, but it really doesn't change anything - we know everyone can't stand us and we are over it.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz
I believe that Christ is often shown on the cross so that whenever people see a crucifix they remember what christ went through for us.


Finally someone has chosen to address the other part of the original post.

If you went to a funeral of one of your loved ones you would no doubt expect to see them presented in a respectful manner, eg. in a nice suit, appearing peaceful, whether it be their actual body in the coffin or simply a nice picture of them looking their best.

Now imagine they were presented instead when they looked their absolute worst, while they were in pain and agony, stripped naked and bleeding just prior to their death especially if that was a violent, gruesome death.
That would very disrespectful and unthinkable.

To be reminded over and over again of the way in which a loved one suffered prior to dying especially through graphic imagary would be unpleasant to those who were close to the deceased and disrespectful to all concerned especially the deceased.

Surely the religiously repeated spurious dogma of the reason for His death would be enough to get the message across without the need for the gruesome imagery.
It only adds insult to injury.

The calm loving smiling depiction of Jesus with out stretched welcoming arms, that I have seen in picture and statue form, would be a more suitable and respectful predominant representation in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Do you expect us Catholics to see the errors of our ways? It won't happen on this one. You cannot fight matters of faith. Faith and dogma are something each individual must chose for themselves and the rest of us should respect. It's really not a debatable (if a debate requires a resolution) item.
Do you just want everyone else to see us the way you do? Well, you might succeed there, but it really doesn't change anything - we know everyone can't stand us and we are over it.


Just airing and sharing my opinion. Just as many of a religious disposition have aired their opinions and will continue to do so.
I am certainly under no illusion that I can change anyones mind especially in matters of faith nor do I care to.
I have no problem with Catholics, Christians or any person that follows a particular religion.
It is the originators and formulators of the dogma that is disseminated that I take issue with.
Please don't pretend to be some sort of martyr simply because you're Catholic.
The Church has alot of power and wealth and influence.
You make out that your in some sort persecuted minority group.
There are at least hundreds of millions around the world.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
You make out that your in some sort persecuted minority group.



Hardly, you must have missed my chuckle.

But the truth be told there are plenty of people even here that enjoy a good dig at Catholics by those who just don't get us. there is no way to explain it, anymore than I can get the dogmas of other religions that think they are the answer. I just don't see the point Point.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
*Ahem*

No, it is not symbolic cannibalism. As a life long Catholic, I can tell you this with undoubted assurance. Simply put, despite what Valhall wants to say, Jesus did offer up his body and blood to his followers. They were instructed to eat the bread which represented his "body", and drink the wine which represented his "blood". In doing so, they were "taking in" or "becoming full of" Jesus Christ. It was a symbol of respect, not vampirism and cannibalism. Sorry that you would think that, but it is simply not true.

Like I said, it was a symbol of becoming full of the Son of God, which was the highest honor to the followers of Jesus.

As for that scriptural evidence:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

and:

"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." (Matthew 26:27)

You can find similar accounts in the books of Mark, Luke, and John. For all you non-Catholics, those are the three other Gospels, that record Jesus' life through his death and resurrection.


Any questions?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
WeBDevil,

The key words in the original post is 'symbolic cannibalism'.
The wafer represents/symbolises the 'Body of Christ' as the priest (and often his assistants) repeatedly declare to each parishoner just before they consume.

This ritual is considered an important part of a Catholic Church Mass, as well as various other Christian Masses.

In whatever light one chooses to view this ritual, it remains symbolic cannibalism.

Whatever the current forms of the New Testement gospels claim Jesus said, the above description still applies.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
WeBDevil,

The key words in the original post is 'symbolic cannibalism'.
The wafer represents/symbolises the 'Body of Christ' as the priest (and often his assistants) repeatedly declare to each parishoner just before they consume.

This ritual is considered an important part of a Catholic Church Mass, as well as various other Christian Masses.

In whatever light one chooses to view this ritual, it remains symbolic cannibalism.

Whatever the current forms of the New Testement gospels claim Jesus said, the above description still applies.


Whatever the current forms of the New Testament Gospels claim? Harsh. I have written in earlier posts about the concept of Transubstantiation. If you are a dictionary maven, I might allow that the literal-minded could and would - and obviously ARE - maintaining that this is 'cannibalism'. This does not make it any less crass. In my experience, the literal minded often resembles the feeble-minded. Generally, I am not so nasty, but I really prefer to see arguments with more meat on them then what I am seeing here.

This is inherently an issue and article of faith. A mystery. I may not understand the Wiccans and their rituals, beliefs, and ceremonies - and I don't. I do give them the courtesy of respecting their practices - that is common civility. In college, I had more than one spirited and respectful dialogue with any number of pagans. We might not agree, but we were always respectful. This civility is lacking in this thread.

The initial post attracted me because of the confrontational nature of the heading. I've followed it out of interest to see where it went. I am finding more and more ammunition for my position that the truest conspiracy one sees here and elsewhere are the open and offensive attacks on Christianity. We can't visit the topic of Catholicism without people tossing off quips about the Priest abuse scandal, the crimes of the RCC, the hidebound values of this monolithic organization bent on crushing people under the millstone of the Wafer and Wine. How is it that intellectualism has been linked to humanism? Anyone ever read Aquinas? Augustine? Julian of Norwich? Faith and reason are hardly oxymoronic.

I shant essay another discussion of the Mystery of the Eucharist. Go back and read some of the earlier threads. The point I am making in this post is that if the discussion is bent on obsessing on the literal, there is not much to go on here. As I stated earlier, I might not understand a ritual of a religion I don't share, but if I want to, at least I would do my homework and read up on it. If we are going to hazard to be intellectuals, let us be intellectual bona fide and not of the more garden-variety pseudo...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join