Transubstantiation makes it literal. Catholic and a couple other demoninations believe they are magically transforming the wine and bread into actual blood and flesh. I mean, that’s what it teaches anyway; whether most people participating believe that is a different story.
My mom forced me into catechesis, uh, they have this cookie they believe that symbolizes God’s body. Once the teacher mentioned it and a girl didn’t know what was it. When I replied “It’s a cookie”, the woman got angry at me and began saying calling it a cookie was “disrespectful”.
But ultimately, the statement being made is addressed to people who do literally believe that it is happening. If you don’t believe that, then the statement doesn’t apply to you, does it?
Furthermore, if they hold, as a requirement for eating the flesh and drinking the blood, that you must believe in its magic, then they are still people who seem to think that they are regularly practising literal cannibalism, and are not just okay with that, but are convinced that it would be morally wrongnot to do so.
Throw as many words at it as you want, but literally happening means happening in real life, actually, physically, genuinely, for real. It doesn’t depend on belief.
IDK man… Believing you’re actually cannibalizing someone even if you’re not is a bit more fucked up than understanding you’re not actually eating human flesh and it’s just a ritual.
Ok here’s a question - if you have bleeding gums and swallow the blood, are you a cannibal? What if somebody gives you a drop of their blood to swallow? If Catholics believe Jesus is immortal, do they think they’re being cannibals by drinking a small amount of his blood with his consent (in fact, it’s his idea)? In my mind the central question is, does this debate matter any more than an argument about whether Superman could beat up The Hulk? To that last one I’ll say no, it doesn’t, to me it’s all just idle amusement.
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn’t matter at all that it doesn’t literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to “you”, where “you” applies to the reader if and only if the reader “regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting”. I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they “literally” eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
OTOH it’s not literally consuming blood and flesh, it’s more like doing it in a D&D game, but with the self-delusion that it’s real.
Transubstantiation makes it literal. Catholic and a couple other demoninations believe they are magically transforming the wine and bread into actual blood and flesh. I mean, that’s what it teaches anyway; whether most people participating believe that is a different story.
Well no, for Catholics it literally is. They’ve killed a ton of people of the years over this issue.
My mom forced me into catechesis, uh, they have this cookie they believe that symbolizes God’s body. Once the teacher mentioned it and a girl didn’t know what was it. When I replied “It’s a cookie”, the woman got angry at me and began saying calling it a cookie was “disrespectful”.
Calling that dollar store rice paper fiasco a “cookie” is an insult to every actual cookie I’ve ever haf
There isn’t even rice, it’s literally just water and flour.
I mean, Henry VIII spun off the Anglican church so he could properly call it a biscuit.
Former Catholic here. No, they believe “trans-substantiation” literally happens, but it literally doesn’t.
But ultimately, the statement being made is addressed to people who do literally believe that it is happening. If you don’t believe that, then the statement doesn’t apply to you, does it?
Furthermore, if they hold, as a requirement for eating the flesh and drinking the blood, that you must believe in its magic, then they are still people who seem to think that they are regularly practising literal cannibalism, and are not just okay with that, but are convinced that it would be morally wrong not to do so.
Throw as many words at it as you want, but literally happening means happening in real life, actually, physically, genuinely, for real. It doesn’t depend on belief.
IDK man… Believing you’re actually cannibalizing someone even if you’re not is a bit more fucked up than understanding you’re not actually eating human flesh and it’s just a ritual.
Ok here’s a question - if you have bleeding gums and swallow the blood, are you a cannibal? What if somebody gives you a drop of their blood to swallow? If Catholics believe Jesus is immortal, do they think they’re being cannibals by drinking a small amount of his blood with his consent (in fact, it’s his idea)? In my mind the central question is, does this debate matter any more than an argument about whether Superman could beat up The Hulk? To that last one I’ll say no, it doesn’t, to me it’s all just idle amusement.
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn’t matter at all that it doesn’t literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to “you”, where “you” applies to the reader if and only if the reader “regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting”. I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they “literally” eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
Reading comprehension is dead lol
Ironic, then, that I can’t comprehend whether you are concurring or dissenting from my view. Whom are you suggesting isn’t comprehending?
Oh the person you were replying to obviously isn’t comprehending the words you wrote.