Whoa, things got deep in one of my group chats. I don't know where it started, but this was what I logged in to see:
[21:21] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: im not a follower of the faith but when i was i was lutheran. Meaning other than being a christian it was custom to correct other christians on their belife xD
"Belief". But carry on.
[21:22] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Jesus is not god
[21:22] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Otherwise it would not be the holy trinity
There are some differing interpretations, but generally, you're correct.
[21:22] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: it's always funny to observe christians arguing over that stuff, seeing protistants and catholics kill eachother with tomato soup
"Protestants".
[21:23] Emilly Orr: Tomato soup?
[21:23] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: it's a joke for church food, im far from christian, but the church has good food after church
[21:24] Emilly Orr: I hadn't heard that one before. Neat.
[21:24] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Christians believe in weekly ritual canabalism!
"Cannibalism". And your point?
[21:24] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: "you must eat raw veal in becoming a man!"
[21:25] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: not all christians believe the same thing
[21:25] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: hence why its flawed
[21:25] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: well yea
[21:25] Emilly Orr: Consuming raw veal has its hazards.
[21:25] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and all religions have some basis in truth, you just have to figure out what is true and what is lies
Exactly.
[21:26] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i can respect people who believe it as a moral ground for caring for your family and neighbors and all, it's the ones who go crazy towards anything that they feel is a threat to their view
[21:26] Emilly Orr nods.
[21:26] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Thats called Cherry picking
[21:26] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Show me where Christianity has a weekly practice of cannibalism.
[21:26] Emilly Orr: To both of those. Zealotry, in any faith, should be avoided.
[21:26] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of christ.
[21:26] Emilly Orr: Well, it's technically Catholicism, [Rxxxx].
[21:27] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Sounds like cannabalism to me
"Cannibalism".
[21:27] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: aka crackers and whine
[21:27] Emilly Orr grins
Old joke, still funny.
[21:27] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That is not weekly and it's not cannibalism it's symbolism.
How is it not weekly? When I was (briefly) Catholic, every Sunday Communion would be offered. Every Sunday, I'd take Communion. Do other Catholic churches not do that every Sunday?
[21:27] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i mean all we're missing is the cheese and it wouldn't be church it would be a social gathering
[21:27] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Jesus said, take of this BREAD and eat for it represents my body.
[21:27] Emilly Orr: It's transubstantiation.
[21:28] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if it was human flesh and blood then it would be cannibalism
That's why it's transubstantiation. Technical definition:
Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
~~Wikipedia
Semi-officially. I mean, as official as Wikipedia gets.
[21:28] Emilly Orr: While symbolic, technically it is considered consuming God. So to speak.
[21:28] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And the WINE represented His blood.
[21:28] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Are you a god?
[21:28] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: who isnt a god anymoer?
"Anymore".
[21:28] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: or v8 if you had to go to a protistant church for awanas when you were a kid 
"Protestant".
[21:28] Cxxx Lxxxxxxxx: It was a metaphor for the sacrifice.
[21:28] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: considering we all have the power to create i would say we're all gods.
[21:28] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Correct [Cxxx].
[21:28] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: This is sl, so no big deal, but your interpretation of Catholicism is incorrect
[21:29] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: it is not symbolism
[21:29] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: we should change the subject before this get too heated
[21:29] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It IS symbolism it's NOT cannibalism.
There's a few different answers to this one.
Have two.
[21:30] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: it is not symbolism - in Christian religions it is symbolism - in Catholicism it is not
[21:30] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: People are idiots and will believe whatever they read on FakeBook.
[21:30] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: So Chatholics don't take Communion?
"Catholics".
[21:31] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Catholics do have communion - but Catholics believe in what is called transubstantiation
[21:31] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Right where one thing takes the place of another.
[21:31] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That is symbolism.
[21:32] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Transubstantiation means it changes into the body and blood of Jesus Christ for real - not just symbolism
[21:32] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That is a main difference between Lutherans and Catholics
[21:32] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And this is why the Catholic church is the biggest scam ever. haha
[21:32] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: now one could argue it is a Spiritual reality and not a Physical reality
[21:32] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: A man that protects other men that touch little boys and girls.
[21:33] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Yeah that has Godly written all over it, am I right?
[21:33] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that transubstation occurs only in a spiritual universt
"Transubstantiation". And "universe".
[21:33] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: but it is still a reality
[21:33] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: not symbolism
[21:34] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Then you are even further deluded because nowhere in the Bible does it say that it becomes the actual blood and flesh.
It alludes to it, but you're right, it never outright says. The difference with Catholicism, versus many other Judaic-based faiths, is that Catholics
do take it literally, and have made it part of weekly practice.
[21:34] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: They are only used as a medium to represent each.
[21:35] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Rxxxx], see another difference between Catholicism and Christians - Catholicism is not a faith that is Bible dependent
[21:35] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: it is a faith of Authority
[21:35] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: the problem is many seek material rather than find it within themself, that is the problem I sense a lot of christians face
[21:35] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Right of MEN.
[21:35] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if the Pope and the Cardinals say something - it is true
Well, if the Pope and the Cardinals say something, it's supposed to be true. It is not absolute, capitol-T, Truth. Very little is.
[21:35] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It's not a religion of God. haha
[21:35] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Bullsh*t].
[21:35] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: They are men and you are brainwashed.
[21:35] Emilly Orr: Or supposed to be. The Pope talks to God, is the theory, and he tells people what God said.
[21:36] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: They are not godd.
[21:36] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That may be [Rxxxx] - but it is still the facts
[21:36] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: the facts are the facts
[21:36] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: No it is the farce.
[21:36] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: they may be untrue but they are still the principles of faith
You've answered your own question. Faith is not fact.
[21:36] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Faith is not fact based idiot.
Right, that.
[21:36] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: So if you believe that it's ALL ON YOU.
[21:37] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That is what they TEACH but that is not a fact.
[21:37] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Rxxxx] - but what they teach is a fact
To Catholics? Maybe. To everyone else? No.
[21:37] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It is not.
[21:37] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The pope does not speak for God.
[21:37] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The Pope speaks for the Church.
[21:37] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: To spread THEIR will not God's.
[21:38] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The dark ages were a DIRECT result of that [bullsh*t].
Pretty much.
[21:38] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: So much knowledge suppressed because "god" said it was unholy.
[21:38] Emilly Orr: Partially. The rest was the Church restricting literacy to the priests, and the nobles they couldn't repress.
[21:39] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And it all came from man.
[21:39] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And the Vatican continues to sit on knowledge.
And likely always will. They like knowing things the 'common folk' don't.
[21:39] Emilly Orr: Well, in the largest sense, everything came from man. Everything was written down by someone.
[21:39] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Ahh, but the Bible is from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Catholic Faith has no such lineage.
The Bible is actually from a lot of disparate sources, not just the Dead Sea scrolls.
[21:40] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It is ALL made up by men.
Everything is.
[21:40] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: A lot of faiths changed when the scrolls were found to support the Bible.
[21:41] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Only the ones with the absolute control, didn't change.
[21:41] Emilly Orr: The Essenes wrote the Dead Sea scrolls, near as we can figure
[21:42] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Yes but they are a SEPARATE source that confirms a lot of what was in the Bible. That is why they were so important.
[21:43] Emilly Orr: The Bible had many sources.
[21:43] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: No duh.
[21:43] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It is a compendium of many books.
Precisely.
[21:44] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Which is why the scrolls containing a lot of the same information was so crucial.
[21:45] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The Catholic church sprung up from that and went their own way saying that you couldn't talk to God yourself and had to go through a priest.
[21:45] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Which was why Jesus was sent in the first place.
[21:46] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: To be the ULTIMATE perfect sacrifice so man could talk DIRECTLY to God.
Talking to God is hard?
[21:46] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: you cannot sacrifice your self to yourself
It's an interesting philosophical point, isn't it?
[21:46] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: He wasn't himself. He was the Son.
[21:47] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that's how you become a ghost trapped in purgatory
[21:47] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: so your saying jesus is god? or you saying they're seperate?
"Separate".
[21:47] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: They are separate parts of the One. God the Father, God the Son and The Holy Ghost.
[21:48] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The Holy trinity as people call it, even though it's never called that in the Bible.
No, that was purely a Catholic invention.
[21:48] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i would highly suggest watching Aron Ra on youtube
Eh, I like
Logicked and the
Armoured Skeptic better, and
Professor Stick's pretty good, too, though his focus is mainly medical skepticism. But he's got value, and a bit of status, as one of the first skeptic accounts on YouTube.
[21:48] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: on that note im done talking about it.
[21:48] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I'm sorry, if a YouTube channel is your source of info you need to go read some books.
[21:49] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Start with the Bible.
[21:50] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: sorry for not believing in your religion. i find it flawed and pointless. May Odin watch over you.
[21:50] Emilly Orr: If the Bible is your only source of information, then it's going to be inconsistent.
[21:50] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It's not, go back and read what I typed. I said "books" and said "start with the Bible".
[21:51] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: After that go read Josephus.
[21:51] Emilly Orr: Fair enough.
[21:51] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: agreed. im putting this chat on mute for a few hours.
[21:51] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Ya'll started it.
[21:51] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I just presented a view contrary to yours and backed it with logic instead of [bullsh*t].
[21:51] gxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: what have i done. . . .
[21:52] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: the bible. Loaded with inconsistent falasies. and you call it logic! this is why im annoyed
"Fallacies".
[21:53] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And yet you tout the Catholic Church with all it's baby touching homos?
"Its". And ouch. And also, not accurate--most pedophiles, while they can have gender preferences, they aren't thinking same or opposite sex as much as they are thinking "child who cannot fight back".
[21:53] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and closing chat
[21:53] rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Yeah that is a valid stance.
And I decided yeah, that sounded like a good option, too.
4 comments:
OK, I am going to wade into this, because at one point, I was a devout Catholic. This is taken from a Catholic priest that basically yelled at me for an hour drive, as I was a captive audience.
"Consubstantiation" states that the host is the flesh pf God, but it is also bread. "Transubstantiation" is interpreted as the idea that it is ONLY the flesh of Christ. In order words, according to the faith, it does not matter if you take a host to a forensic lab , analyze it, and prove it is bread, it is not according to the faith.
Now, while most people do not push the issue, many of the devout do, because back when Henry the Eighth decided to form the Church of England, they went for Consubstantiation. Now the typical tale about Henry needing a divorce so that he could try and father a male heir has some truth, but it should be noted that England, as is now, always felt itself a bit apart from Europe, thus a lot of idea that would have been crushed in the rest of Europe managed to linger there.
Then, sometime later, a German priest, inspired in part by England, decided to nail 95 complaints against the Catholics (aka the 95 thesis) to a cathedral wall. To be fair, this was also during a time when the pope was attempting massive fundraising in Europe, selling the literal forgiveness of sins. They even had a jingle "as soon as coin in coffer springs, the soul from purgatory springs." I remember asking if that was serious, he then said it in German, where it even had the rhyme scheme.
This could go on and on. I am not even going to touch the matter of a certain french lawyer named John Calvin, save that his brand of Christianity helped define a lot of what became American Christianity. The point is that a lot of people, for a lot of reasons that were entirely POLITICAL, decided to define concepts that were more based in politics than scripture.
This is compounded by the fact that it is hard to separate when a word is meant to talk about a "spiritual concept." For any amateur preachers out there, the following verse applies:
1 Corinthians 2:12-13 New International Version (NIV)
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a]
Thank you. I know a fair amount about a lot of differing religions, but I'd never heard "consubstantiation". That's very interesting.
I'd also point out, however, that regardless of what any particular deity may have intended, what we have is those thoughts/feelings/commandments interpreted by people. And, in the case of Christianity, we further have the original works (in Aramaic) later translated into Greek and Latin, and then further into more modern languages. Translation errors were also made with early Catholic priests, who felt the language would flow better if put one way, or perhaps what was originally meant was some other thing, and thus, we find ourselves in the here and now.
(nods) Also Some languages will just not translate well. For example, English, for all the work of William the Conqueror, is still a Germanic language, which means the structure and form are more similar. Take a Rammstein song like "Du hast", line up the english translation, and the flow is very much intact.
http://affenknecht.com/lyrics/rammstein-du-hast-with-english-translation/
Now, try the same thing with ANY sing in Spanish or Italian or French. It will NOT work. That is because languages based in Latin do NOT even put the words in the same order as the Germanic ones. That is why when you see songs translated into English, they fall FLAT.
Of course, we could also talk about how translation errors were made with a very deliberate attempt to ensure a particular point of viewwas made, but that is it's own essay :)
Also true. I have one Concordance Bible, but it's really only the Latin beside the English, it doesn't take into account the trips through Greece, various Middle Eastern countries, and any specific changes. I'd love to find a Bible that has each verse translated into English, with the "originals" in whatever language they can be farthest dated back, but that's a job and a half.
Post a Comment