Scathing remarks from Atheists

[Cat_Herder]

Let me make this clear, a human ingesting human flesh is cannibalism by definition regardless if you can make an analogy to metabolism within the theology.

The substance of the Eucharist is human flesh and blood, but the accidents are not.

In the case of say, the Donner party, you have the appearance of one human consuming the flesh of another human being. Because the accidental aspect of what is being consumed is human flesh, it is cannibalism. The accidental aspect of the Eucharist is the appearance of the Host as being bread. That’s not at all comparable.

If I go and knock down a red octagon that is painted “STOP” in white letters, I am not guilty of a crime because it is not a stop sign. For it to be a stop sign, the Legislature has to pass a statute that says this is a stop sign. If I then go and knock down the what-is-now-a-stop sign, I am guilty of a crime. Your analogy to the Donner party is like a defense lawyer arguing that his client is not guilty of knocking down the stop sign because the statute making such an object a stop sign is invalid. Of course, the statute is valid and the lawyer is out of his mind for making an argument that would destroy the transportation infrastructure.

I’m well aware of the theology of the “Body of Christ” and well aware of 1 Cor. By the way, how hard is it to write a book that contains the made-up theology of the time? Just because something is written in an old book doesn’t mean it isn’t made-up.

You can’t make up the facts.

You mean the anti-Catholic Franciscan University of Steubenville! Seriously man, this made me laugh so hard by jumping to absurd conclusions here. Perhaps you didn’t consider that I have been Catholic before but that I can think for myself.

If the faculty at Franciscan has caused you to lose your faith then they have failed. I show no partiality.

 

[AnAtheist]

Christianity gets its roots from Judaism. Tell them to look it up. It’s really old. One of the oldest beliefs in human history.

Actually, what we know as Judaism staret somewhere around 720 BC. Anything before that is myth and by no means historically accurate.
Hinduism, pagan beliefs and esp. animism are all far older.

If you look it up in history books instead of the Bible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually, what we know as Judaism staret somewhere around 720 BC. Anything before that is myth and by no means historically accurate.
Hinduism, pagan beliefs and esp. animism are all far older.

If you look it up in history books instead of the Bible.

We actually ran tests to confirm that Biblical events like the Exodus happened. Let me know when you get around to empirically testing your hypothesis.

 

[Biblepoe]

The substance of the Eucharist is human flesh and blood, but the accidents are not.

In the case of say, the Donner party, you have the appearance of one human consuming the flesh of another human being. Because the accidental aspect of what is being consumed is human flesh, it is cannibalism.

I’m saying whether or not it has the accidents (appearances) of flesh is irrelevant as to whether consuming the Eucharist constitutes cannibalism.

There is a supposed miracle called the miracle of Lanciano in which the host supposedly turned into human flesh during the consecration. It seems you would consider ingesting that to be cannibalism (accident of human flesh), but would not consider it cannibalism if the exact same thing were consumed without having the appearance of flesh.

You can’t make up the facts.

Theologians can and have made much of theology up. Most of the time they honestly think they are coming to some sort of realization of reality by doing so.

If the faculty at Franciscan has caused you to lose your faith then they have failed. I show no partiality.

No longer being a Catholic has nothing to do with the faculty at Franciscan and everything to do with there being little to no evidence for the magical claims of the Catholic Church.

I have become a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for reasons similar to Pascal’s Wager, which I don’t care to elaborate on here since I have been given an infraction for listing this as my religion. (I’ll have to contact the moderators in private about this)

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m saying whether or not it has the accidents (appearances) of flesh is irrelevant as to whether consuming the Eucharist constitutes cannibalism.

Let’s try this again.

If I go and knock down a red octagon that is painted “STOP” in white letters, I am not guilty of a crime because it is not a stop sign. For it to be a stop sign, the Legislature has to pass a statute that says this is a stop sign. If I then go and knock down the what-is-now-a-stop sign, I am guilty of a crime. Your analogy to the Donner party is like a defense lawyer arguing that his client is not guilty of knocking down the stop sign because the statute making such an object a stop sign is invalid. Of course, the statute is valid and the lawyer is out of his mind for making an argument that would destroy the transportation infrastructure.

Reply?

There is a supposed miracle called the miracle of Lanciano in which the host supposedly turned into human flesh during the consecration. It seems you would consider ingesting that to be cannibalism (accident of human flesh), but would not consider it cannibalism if the exact same thing were consumed without having the appearance of flesh.

It looks like Lanciano really bothers you, which is why you keep going back to it. The Host at Lanciano is human flesh and blood in accidents but it still would not be truly “other” because there is but one Body of Christ.

Theologians can and have made much of theology up. Most of the time they honestly think they are coming to some sort of realization of reality by doing so.

Is this made up?

No longer being a Catholic has nothing to do with the faculty at Franciscan and everything to do with there being little to no evidence for the magical claims of the Catholic Church.

Ahem.

We actually ran tests to confirm that Biblical events like the Exodus happened. Let me know when you get around to empirically testing your hypothesis.

 

[Biblepoe]

Reply?

I really don’t know what your point is with the stop sign scenario. I don’t think it relates to this discussion much at all. My point with the Donner Party is that cannibalism may be acceptable in rare circumstances, but it is still cannibalism.

It looks like Lanciano really bothers you, which is why you keep going back to it.

I keep going back to Lanciano to make a point, not because it bothers me. Since it seems you didn’t get it, I’ll explain.

If:
1 Ingesting the flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.
2 The appearance of flesh doesn’t change whether ingesting it constitutes cannibalism.
3 The only differences between the Eucharist and the flesh at Lanciano are appearances.
Then ingesting the Eucharist is cannibalism.

Do I need to explain this further?

The Host at Lanciano is human flesh and blood in accidents but it still would not be truly “other” because there is but one Body of Christ.

Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Eating the human flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.”

I’m going to ignore your attempt to change the subject until you answer this.

 

[thenobes]

I really don’t know what your point is with the stop sign scenario. I don’t think it relates to this discussion much at all. My point with the Donner Party is that cannibalism may be acceptable in rare circumstances, but it is still cannibalism.

I keep going back to Lanciano to make a point, not because it bothers me. Since it seems you didn’t get it, I’ll explain.

If:
1 Ingesting the flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.
2 The appearance of flesh doesn’t change whether ingesting it constitutes cannibalism.
3 The only differences between the Eucharist and the flesh at Lanciano are appearances.
Then ingesting the Eucharist is cannibalism.

Do I need to explain this further?

Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Eating the human flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.”

I’m going to ignore your attempt to change the subject until you answer this.

Eating the flesh of a human person is cannibalism. Jesus is a Divine Person.

The fact that He has a human nature is irrelevant to us in this particular matter, except as it may be repellent to some in their own human nature, which may be one of the reasons for the appearences of Bread and Wine.

peace
steve

 

[Biblepoe]

Eating the flesh of a human person is cannibalism. Jesus is a Divine Person.

The fact that He has a human nature is irrelevant to us in this particular matter, except as it may be repellent to some in their own human nature, which may be one of the reasons for the appearences of Bread and Wine.

peace
steve

The CC teaches that Jesus is both fully human and divine (ask any theologian). So in eating the Eucharist one is eating god while eating human flesh.

 

[thenobes]

The CC teaches that Jesus is both fully human and divine (ask any theologian). So in eating the Eucharist one is eating god while eating human flesh.

But He is only one person, and that person is Divine.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

I really don’t know what your point is with the stop sign scenario. I don’t think it relates to this discussion much at all. My point with the Donner Party is that cannibalism may be acceptable in rare circumstances, but it is still cannibalism.

I keep going back to Lanciano to make a point, not because it bothers me. Since it seems you didn’t get it, I’ll explain.

If:
1 Ingesting the flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.
2 The appearance of flesh doesn’t change whether ingesting it constitutes cannibalism.
3 The only differences between the Eucharist and the flesh at Lanciano are appearances.
Then ingesting the Eucharist is cannibalism.

Do I need to explain this further?

Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Eating the human flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.”

I’m going to ignore your attempt to change the subject until you answer this.

Eating the flesh of a human person is cannibalism. Jesus is a Divine Person.

The fact that He has a human nature is irrelevant to us in this particular matter, except as it may be repellent to some in their human nature, which may be the reason for the appearences of Bread and Wine.

peace
steve

 

[Farsight001]

Biblepoe, I think you’re asking the wrong question here. The question you should be asking is, regardless of whether it is cannibalism or not, if that really is the flesh and blood of Christ, why and how? Why would Jesus Christ willingly perform such a miracle and tell us to consume it were it a perversion of his teachings?

In other words, if it’s just bread, its not cannibalism, no matter how you spin it. If it is Jesus’ flesh and blood, there’s got to be something to it if the almighty is going to will something like that.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I really don’t know what your point is with the stop sign scenario.

Try running it.

A car with flashy lights makes noise at you and a guy in a blue shirt walks up to you and hands you a piece of paper. You don’t care; after all, it’s just a flashy car, a guy and a piece of paper. A few days later another guy in a blue shirt walks up you, grabs you, throws you to the ground and puts handcuffs on you. You shout that this is just a guy in a blue shirt and so he has no right to handcuff you but nevertheless, you are promptly thrown into the back of the flashy car and told some story about a lady named Miranda.

The next thing you know you are in front of a lady in a black robe, and her name isn’t Miranda. She says that you ran a stop sign, were cited and failed to appear. You say that you didn’t drive past a stop sign, you drove past a red octagon with some white paint on it.

Whether or not your defense holds depends on whether we observe the substance of the stop sign (an object with juridical effect), or merely its empirically observable aspects (a red octagon with white paint). You don’t want to believe that there is a difference between substance and accidents, between a stop sign and a red octagon with white paint, which is why you keep calling the Eucharist cannibalism.

Well pal, I hate to break it to you, but you’re going to jail because substance is real. The flashy car is a police cruiser; the blue-shirted guys are police officers; the piece of paper is a citation and promise to appear for court; the Miranda warnings took away your rights; and the lady in the black robe is a very angry judge. Oh, and the red octagon with white paint is a STOP SIGN. And, yes, the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Eating the human flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.”

I’m going to ignore your attempt to change the subject until you answer this.

I already answered the question:

The Host at Lanciano is human flesh and blood in accidents but it still would not be truly “other” because there is but one Body of Christ.

It still isn’t cannibalism because it is not the consumption of the body of another. You want to create a special category of self-cannibalism, but you yourself are a self-cannibal because you eat your own flesh every day unless you’ve never used a Chap-Stick in your life.

 

[AnAtheist]

We actually ran tests to confirm that Biblical events like the Exodus happened. Let me know when you get around to empirically testing your hypothesis.

Interesting. That article scientificly said, what perfectly fits into the OP’s list of not very nice, satirical depiction of Christian beliefs: Was God a Volcano?

I like to refer to the works of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, furthermore of Jan Assmann, all archaeologists and experts on the “exodus”. What is is told in the AT is clearly a myth on how Judaism developed, but not history.

 

[AnAtheist]

“Eating the human flesh at Lanciano is cannibalism.”

The fun part is, that the wonder of Lanciano is clearly against Catholic teachings on transsubstantiation.

“Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.”
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Accoridng to that (and I guess the source is trustworthy), a host that is actually turning into real flesh like in Lanciano is not the same the Eucharist. Now I won’t debate whether this “wonder” is real or a cheap trick to fool the gullible masses, that’s too boring, but whatever happened there, it has nothing to do with a transsubstantiation.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Interesting. That article scientificly said, what perfectly fits into the OP’s list of not very nice, satirical depiction of Christian beliefs: Was God a Volcano?

I guess you think it’s not okay for God to use His own creation to accomplish His will. News flash: we are not one of those cults that shuns doctors and psychologists because we think we can order God to directly heal us, instead we recognize that God created doctors and psychologists (and volcanoes) for a reason.

 

[AnAtheist]

I guess you think it’s not okay for God to use His own creation to accomplish His will.

That is most certainly not what I think. I think gods are mythological beings and the stories told about them contain moral and ethical teachings and coded natural or cultural phenomena. Thus it is okay for the gods to do almost anything and I spare my moral judgement for what their followers are doing (based on that teachings). “By their fruits…”

News flash: we are not one of those cults that shuns doctors and psychologists because we think we can order God to directly heal us, instead we recognize that God created doctors and psychologists (and volcanoes) for a reason.

Yes, I know that. That makes Catholics are lot better to reason with than all those fundamental evangelicals out there.

 

[promethius]

The CC teaches that Jesus is both fully human and divine (ask any theologian). So in eating the Eucharist one is eating god while eating human flesh.

Cannibalism is a materialist charge… confined only to the realm of accidents, meaning literally to eat human flesh.

When we take the Eucharist, we receive the fullness of the Body and Blood of Christ in substance, but what we eat is the accident of bread and wine.

Incidently, you are wrong about the connection between the miracle of Lanciano and the average reception of the Eucharist… while there is no SUBSTANTIAL difference in what is present, there is MOST CERTAINLY an accidental difference.

Since cannibalism is a material charge that can only be understood when discussing accidental reality, and transubstantiation and consumption of the Eucharist only involves that which is SUBSTANTIALLY and not ACCIDENTALLY Body and Blood, your charge makes absolutely no sense.

In fact, it was a charge for which the pagan romans sought to punish Christians… after all, if we were cannibals then we would be subject to death under Roman law… but the charges proved negative when investigated by then Roman Pagan and later saint Justin Martyr. You are about 1,850 years behind the times with your claims.

 

[promethius]

The fun part is, that the wonder of Lanciano is clearly against Catholic teachings on transsubstantiation.

“Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.”
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Accoridng to that (and I guess the source is trustworthy), a host that is actually turning into real flesh like in Lanciano is not the same the Eucharist. Now I won’t debate whether this “wonder” is real or a cheap trick to fool the gullible masses, that’s too boring, but whatever happened there, it has nothing to do with a transsubstantiation.

You are correct that it physically differs from your average act of transubstantiation, but incorrect that it “has nothing to do with transubstantiation”. The act of transubstantiation is a change of substance. This process is independent of accident. Thus a change in accident at Lanciano has nothing to do with, nor any prohibitive effect on, the change in substance which likewise occured.

 

[Cat_Herder]

That is most certainly not what I think. I think gods are mythological beings and the stories told about them contain moral and ethical teachings and coded natural or cultural phenomena.

So then this is a piece of mythology?

 

[eddadonkey]

+JMJ+

“Quit forcing your disbelief down my throat, or I’ll start forcing my belief into yours!”