Christians being offended by their own beliefs

[Laurens]

I posted a link to that 'Adopt an Atheist Campaign' on my facebook yesterday, along with a bit of a rant about it. Anyway my ranting attracted the attention of a Christian who was trying to defend Catholicism, anyway she was massively offended by the fact that I said words to the effect of 'eating wafers and drinking wine while pretending that they are flesh and blood is symbolic of cannibalism' - which is true, symbolically eating flesh and drinking blood is by definition symbolically cannibalistic. She seemed to be hugely offended by this and other remarks I made about talking snakes etc.

The thing is, I wasn't mocking her personally at all, I was just stating what she believed, anyway I concluded with this:

And the truth is Christianity does state that a talking serpent persuaded Eve to eat a fruit, and the doctrine of original sin does state that we inherited this 'sin' from Adam and Eve, and if we don't ask for forgiveness we'll be punished, it's no less ridiculous than I made it out to be. And eating bread, drinking wine and pretending they are flesh and blood is symbolic cannibalism no matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether you think it magically transforms or not. I'm not mocking anyone I'm just stating it how it is, if you find that to be insulting or mocking then that says more about the beliefs themselves than it does about me.

So, yeah, don't you think it says a lot about Christianity when they're offended by their own beliefs being presented for what they are?

 

[Prolescum]

That is the unfortunate face of insta-defense. That person knows what cannibalism is, and knows what the wafer and wine represents and through her own mental connections is unhappy with the conclusion (that it is backward/barbaric/whatever). The reason for it is that you've made the implicit explicit.
Most people associate cannibalism with 18th/19th century depictions of natives of non-European continents and islands in the press and literature (un-Christian savages), and/or zombies. Either way, it doesn't look good. The only way to turn the argument around is to insist that you are intentionally trying to be offensive by using that term to describe the Eucharist, regardless of how concise it is in that context (symbolic cannibalism). Of course because it isn't actually literal cannibalism, one could argue that calling it Communion or whatever is the more accurate term.

Some Christians get bitten by snakes.

 

[xman]

"Truthful words are not beautiful" ~ Lao Tzu

 

[Oliver]

Interesting.

I had a similar experience under my poe guise where I say that you have to telepathically accept that Jesus took the punishment for your sins in order to attain the telepathic salvation.

There was another christian on the MSS who couldn't believe how ridiculous I was. But it is effect what the deal is, isn't it? I agree that saying it like that is somewhat a ridicule, but its not misrepresenting what is outright happening.

That's why when playing my poe character I say this as candidly as possible.

 

[Neanderthal]

I think this is a common defense mechanism for people who know that what they are doing is borderline X ( X being immoral, unethical, evil, irrational, insane,..). If you told a Nazi working dayshift in a concentration camp that he/she was murdering children, he/she would probably be offended. The "fact" that they get extremely upset when confronted with a reformulation of their action, I consider as proof that they do not really believe the shit they are shoveling.

 

[MaryContrary]

So, yeah, don't you think it says a lot about Christianity when they're offended by their own beliefs being presented for what they are?

Christianity or that one Christian you reference?

I think this is a common defense mechanism for people who know that what they are doing is borderline X ( X being immoral, unethical, evil, irrational, insane,..). If you told a Nazi working dayshift in a concentration camp that he/she was murdering children, he/she would probably be offended. The "fact" that they get extremely upset when confronted with a reformulation of their action, I consider as proof that they do not really believe the shit they are shoveling.

So drinking wine and eating wafers that symbolize Christ's flesh and blood is wrong.
Okay. So...what about eating...well, just about any food advertised on television with some animated version of it? Say, California Raisins or something. If you saw that commercial and it moved you to go out and buy that product...and eat it...would that likewise be some terribly wrong sort of pseudo-cannibalism?

What about wearing Fruit of the Loom underwear?

But, hey, I'm not Catholic. Probably why I didn't get offended at the cannibalism thing presented in the OP. I'd have just pointed out that...

"And eating bread, drinking wine and pretending they are flesh and blood is symbolic cannibalism no matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether you think it magically transforms or not."

...was really just a silly thing to say.

 

[australopithecus]

"And eating bread, drinking wine and pretending they are flesh and blood is symbolic cannibalism no matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether you think it magically transforms or not."

...was really just a silly thing to say.

What would you call eating the flesh of another human then, symbolic or not?

 

[Laurens]

"And eating bread, drinking wine and pretending they are flesh and blood is symbolic cannibalism no matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether you think it magically transforms or not."

...was really just a silly thing to say.

I'm sorry, but how can eating Jesus' flesh (who was a human) symbolically or not, be anything other than cannibalism?

What is eating human flesh, if not cannibalism?

 

[MaryContrary]

"And eating bread, drinking wine and pretending they are flesh and blood is symbolic cannibalism no matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether you think it magically transforms or not."

...was really just a silly thing to say.

What would you call eating the flesh of another human then, symbolic or not?

What would you call wearing sentient, animate fruit people for underwear, symbolic or not? Or, you know, eating them out of a box. Whatever.

I think it matters whether it's a symbolic or not. And what it symbolizes as well.

And, as I said, I'm not Catholic. So I do happen to think the Eucharist is silly. And I'll go ahead and admit up front that most Catholics do indeed believe the Christ is actually, physically present in that wine and in those wafers. So not symbolic in most cases. But then you get into the question of whether or not that's really cannibalism, since Christ's status as a human being is rather up in the air. He wasn't, but then He was, but is He now? In the Eucharist specifically? Or are those who participate in this thing actually, physically consuming God?

Rather a messy topic all around. So I figured I'd just stick to the OP, where it was referenced as symbolic cannibalism as an accusation of wrongdoing. And, so, pointed out some other instances of symbolic cannibalism for a little perspective.

So, tell yah what. You all decide what we're talking about. A [symbolic/actual] act of [cannibalism/God-consumption]
Is there a word for that, btw? Eating God?

But, as it happens, I was addressing pretty much what my post indicated I was addressing.

 

[australopithecus]

What would call you call wearing sentient, animate fruit people for underwear, symbolic or not? Or, you know, eating them out of a box. Whatever.

:|

 

[Gnug215]

Is there a word for that, btw? Eating God?

A person eating God would probably be a "Deovore".

 

[MaryContrary]

Is there a word for that, btw? Eating God?

A person eating God would probably be a "Deovore".

So...deovorism, maybe? Deophagism even?

 

[Gnug215]

A person eating God would probably be a "Deovore".

So...deovorism, maybe? Deophagism even?

I like deovorism.

 

[MaryContrary]

I like deovorism.

Gotta agree. So now we got a new word. Let's get it into circulation.

Which is worse? Cannibalism or deovorism?

 

[Laurens]

:lol: :lol:

Who wears underwear made from sentient, animate fruit people?

I actually have tears in my eyes from laughing at such a truly absurd concept...

Where did that come from?

:lol:

 

[MaryContrary]

:lol: :lol:

Who wears underwear made from sentient, animate fruit people?

I actually have tears in my eyes from laughing at such a truly absurd concept...

Where did that come from?

:lol:

Fruit of the loom commercials. Illustrating the silliness of using the Eucharist to accuse Catholics of symbolic cannibalism.

Essentially, if that's symbolic cannibalism then eating California Raisins is symbolic cannibalism (providing you've seen the commercial where they dance around and whatnot, before going out and buying some...and eating them). And, so, likewise wearing Fruit of the Looms (after viewing said commercial and being persuaded by it) would be a symbolic wearing of sentient, animate fruit people.

So if the Eucharist is something one can accuse someone of, then we should all be careful what underwear we wear and why.

Also, I've been known to wear Fruit of the Loom brand. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[australopithecus]

Essentially, if that's symbolic cannibalism then eating California Raisins is symbolic cannibalism (providing you've seen the commercial where they dance around and whatnot, before going out and buying some...and eating them). And, so, likewise wearing Fruit of the Looms (after viewing said commercial and being persuaded by it) would be a symbolic wearing of sentient, animate fruit people.

Err...not really. I've not seen the advert of which you refer but if it is as you say animated anthropomorphised fruit then it wouldn't be symbolic cannibalism by definition. Cannibalism is eating a member of the same species as yourself, and catholic dogma states that through transubstantiation the wine and host transform into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (a human). If you buy into that then it is cannibalism definitionally, symbolically at least. Eating fruit, no matter how human-like they've been portrayed would not be symbolic cannibalism as fruit is not human.

Wearing fruit of the loom underwear would not be wearing animated fruit people because animated fruit people do not exist in reality.

Your argument is flawed, unless you want to argue that the Eucharist isn't symbolic cannibalism because Jesus didn't exist in reality...

 

[Laurens]

:lol: :lol:

Who wears underwear made from sentient, animate fruit people?

I actually have tears in my eyes from laughing at such a truly absurd concept...

Where did that come from?

:lol:

Fruit of the loom commercials. Illustrating the silliness of using the Eucharist to accuse Catholics of symbolic cannibalism.

Essentially, if that's symbolic cannibalism then eating California Raisins is symbolic cannibalism (providing you've seen the commercial where they dance around and whatnot, before going out and buying some...and eating them). And, so, likewise wearing Fruit of the Looms (after viewing said commercial and being persuaded by it) would be a symbolic wearing of sentient, animate fruit people.

So if the Eucharist is something one can accuse someone of, then we should all be careful what underwear we wear and why.

Also, I've been known to wear Fruit of the Loom brand. I see nothing wrong with that.

Well if you have a ritual in which you symbolically drink blood and eat flesh - in my eyes that is very straightforwardly a symbol of cannibalism.

Just like if I had a piece of meat and I was pretending to eat human flesh, I couldn't say say that I wasn't pretending to be a cannibal. Even if I wasn't really eating human flesh.

 

[MaryContrary]

Err...not really. I've not seen the advert of which you refer but if it is as you say animated anthropomorphised fruit then it wouldn't be symbolic cannibalism by definition. Cannibalism is eating a member of the same species as yourself, and catholic dogma states that through transubstantiation the wine and host transform into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (a human). If you buy into that then it is cannibalism definitionally, symbolically at least. Eating fruit, no matter how human-like they've been portrayed would not be symbolic cannibalism as fruit is not human.

Wearing fruit of the loom underwear would not be wearing animated fruit people because animated fruit people do not exist in reality.

Your argument is flawed, unless you want to argue that the Eucharist isn't symbolic cannibalism because Jesus didn't exist in reality...

Well if you have a ritual in which you symbolically drink blood and eat flesh - in my eyes that is very straightforwardly a symbol of cannibalism.

Just like if I had a piece of meat and I was pretending to eat human flesh, I couldn't say say that I wasn't pretending to be a cannibal. Even if I wasn't really eating human flesh.

Both of you are either ignoring the point that Christ was God in the flesh or think that's irrelevant to the cannibalism question. Which is it?

You kind of run into this same general miscommunication (?) when folks bring up the question of whether it was evil of God to offer Christ as a sacrifice for someone else's (i.e. everyone's) sin. It kinda matters to the point, that Christ is God.

We also seem to be kinda back and forth on whether the act in question is symbolic or not. I think since Catholic don't see it as symbolic but actual, we should go with that. The question would then be whether they're committing cannibalism by literally, actually eating Christ's flesh. I'd say then it would depend on whether or not Christ is human. If so, then yes. If no, then no.

So if we really, really want to go ahead and jump right to the heart of the issue here...is it right to obey God and do as He says, specifically if He commands you to eat His flesh?

I say, yes. It's right. Doing anything God wills is, by definition, righteous. Assuming the perfect, righteous character of God most assume. If you want to ascribe another character to God, then we'd be talking about different gods and that'd just confuse the issue impossibly.

That said, I don't think anyone participating in the Eucharist is actually eating Christ's flesh or drinking His blood. Or that God ever commanded we do that in the first place. So in the end I say it's wrong. Not cannibalism, though. Perhaps blasphemy?

Also, wouldn't eating anthropomorphized fruit be the equivalent of symbolically eating sentient, animate fruit? I would think it's close enough for an analogy, anyway.

 

[Laurens]

Err...not really. I've not seen the advert of which you refer but if it is as you say animated anthropomorphised fruit then it wouldn't be symbolic cannibalism by definition. Cannibalism is eating a member of the same species as yourself, and catholic dogma states that through transubstantiation the wine and host transform into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (a human). If you buy into that then it is cannibalism definitionally, symbolically at least. Eating fruit, no matter how human-like they've been portrayed would not be symbolic cannibalism as fruit is not human.

Wearing fruit of the loom underwear would not be wearing animated fruit people because animated fruit people do not exist in reality.

Your argument is flawed, unless you want to argue that the Eucharist isn't symbolic cannibalism because Jesus didn't exist in reality...

Well if you have a ritual in which you symbolically drink blood and eat flesh - in my eyes that is very straightforwardly a symbol of cannibalism.

Just like if I had a piece of meat and I was pretending to eat human flesh, I couldn't say say that I wasn't pretending to be a cannibal. Even if I wasn't really eating human flesh.

Both of you are either ignoring the point that Christ was God in the flesh or think that's irrelevant to the cannibalism question. Which is it?

You kind of run into this same general miscommunication (?) when folks bring up the question of whether it was evil of God to offer Christ as a sacrifice for someone else's (i.e. everyone's) sin. It kinda matters to the point, that Christ is God.

We also seem to be kinda back and forth on whether the act in question is symbolic or not. I think since Catholic don't see it as symbolic but actual, we should go with that. The question would then be whether they're committing cannibalism by literally, actually eating Christ's flesh. I'd say then it would depend on whether or not Christ is human. If so, then yes. If no, then no.

So if we really, really want to go ahead and jump right to the heart of the issue here...is it right to obey God and do as He says, specifically if He commands you to eat His flesh?

I say, yes. It's right. Doing anything God wills is, by definition, righteous. Assuming the perfect, righteous character of God most assume. If you want to ascribe another character to God, then we'd be talking about different gods and that'd just confuse the issue impossibly.

If God wills you to eat babies, does that make it right to do so?

That said, I don't think anyone participating in the Eucharist is actually eating Christ's flesh or drinking His blood. Or that God ever commanded we do that in the first place. So in the end I say it's wrong. Not cannibalism, though. Perhaps blasphemy?

Also, wouldn't eating anthropomorphized fruit be the equivalent of symbolically eating sentient, animate fruit? I would think it's close enough for an analogy, anyway.

Jesus was God in human flesh right? He certainly isn't described as looking anything other than human, and I'd assume that having a human mother would mean he was at least partially human.