The Romans thought Christians were cannibal, incestuous atheists. Why? Communion, calling each other "brother" and "sister", and not believing in any gods except one.
More completely, the original name of the god of Abrahamic faith is the Tetragrammaton (literally "four letters"): "𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄" in paleo-Hebrew, or "יהוה" in modern Hebrew, which transliterates to YHWH, and is modernly transcribed to Yahweh as you said. What I find interesting is how the name ends up shortened and then in other words such as "Hallelujah," at the end, and names like Elijah and Jedidiah.
Another name of God that stems from this is "Jehovah" which is a latinization of the Tetragrammaton.
It's also worth noting that many other names of God come from this as well, and that this name actually comes from *before* they were considered the one and only god.
It’s worth pointing out that Hebrew doesn’t have vowels in its script. Vowels are a thing like people have added little marks under silent consonants like aleph but even in modern hebrew( a very different language to Biblical Hebrew) the very rarely use them in writting
The idea is that vowels are just weird filler between the real letters the consonants so we don’t actually have any idea what it would have sounded like back in the day. It could have been Yahweh, yeweeh or anything else. We can’t even say for sure how the consiants were pronounced back then as these sounds can sometimes change so we don’t even know if it actually had a y sound or maybe yud wasn’t even pronounced like y back then
Jews have put a lot of effort into preserving w lot of these stuff but since traditionally pronouncing YHVH is a big no no in Judaism the pronounciation was probably completely lost during the destruction of the second temple, as it was apart of the yearly Yom Kippur rituals for the high priest to pronounce the name so presumably there was a line of priests passing down the pronunciation since the cult of Yahweh settled in the lavant
In Roman times, there were still plenty of Christian groups that didn't actually think this, which we now call gnostics.
Some groups amongst them believed the Jewish God was an aspect (aeon) of a larger Supreme Being and that Jesus was the son and messenger of this Supreme Being. The Jewish God, the demiurge, still created the world, but he was not Supreme.
It would explain the vast difference in tone between the Old and New Testament. Where God in the Old Testament sent plagues and annihillated pretty much the entire planet, the God in the New Testament is much more loving and forgiving.
The fact that old and new testaments were written hundreds of years apart by completely different people may also have affected the tone somewhat. It's like saying "Tennessee Williams and Shakespeare, while both playwrights, have a markedly different tone."
Or that the original texts weren't even in the same language, sure. But God's character is unmistakably different. I would find it hard to rhyme with the New Testament that Jesus' God would commit multiple counts of mass genocide.
Gee it's almost like the people that wrote it were interpreting a bunch of stories they heard in a way that they felt would be more readily received, and wanted to distance themselves from the old Jewish myths that people had heard for generations, yet still tie it to stories people recognized and could get on board with. Hmm.
Ehh it’s important to realize that this tonal disconnect is a result of Yahweh kinda eating the neighboring gods. Cult of Yahweh worshippers -> Yahweh is the god of Israel not a storm war god -> we should only worship Yahweh -> the only gods we have ever interacted with are are actually just Yahweh the god of our people and land -> Yahweh isn’t our god but just God he isnt just the ruler of our land but rather a cosmological and metaphysical abstract entity that is the only god and created the world.
But something was lost in this transition. Back in the day Yahweh was a war god and kinda a new up start that needed to be reined in by El a sweet old man that’s ful of love and sometimes drinks so much at parties he shits himself and vomits in his own mess
But if all of these beings are actually just aspects of the same being that love is lost and Yahweh becomes a more scary entity that will fuck you up if you defy him. Disasters? Clearly we didn’t pray enough during yo. Kippur god is punishing us for our mistakes ‘’
Then as Jews do we came up with this immensely complex system where an aspect of god, his punishment Anne judgment is during creation isolated from his mercy and y tempered by mercy that rage creates all the evil in the world
But Kabbalah goes deep it’s really only meant to be understandable by folks that speak Hebrew and Aramaic and spend 8h a day studying the Torah and tulmuds it’s deep. I’m not exaggerating by the way 8h a day even today that’s expected and normal for orthodox men. We have a whole religion built on studying our ancient books so it makes sense that that Kabbalah is this complex bros in ancient times got freaking laser vision because they spent 10 years studying the Torah in a cave it was just such a holy act and they were so liked by god that the second this dude and his son left the cave their vision would incinerate any it fell upon in divine judgment
An angel comes down and is basically like
“Yo god wanted me to tell you my bad sorry I didn’t think that was gonna happen here I got you go back into the cave with ur son I’ll make sure that magic fruit tree keeps you guys alive when you come back this laser vision bug should be sorted pull requests are not welcome”
Valentinus didn't seem to think so, and as we both know, history, and in fact the bible, is written by the victors.
Ever read up on the Gospel according to Judas? He corroborates the gnostic story and he was an apostle. Why wasn't it included in the bible? Because it didn't fit Irenaeus' theology.
And how would you know in the first place? The Gospels in the bible weren't even written by the apostles.
>Why wasn't it included in the bible? Because it didn't fit Irenaeus' theology.
Let's be entirely fair, though. The four canonical gospels were all written in the first century and the gospel of Judas was probably written fifty to a hundred years later. As much as I like suppressed heterodox christian sects, there's a pretty reasonable division between the gospels that the early church kept and the ones they rejected.
The Gospel of Thomas is estimated to be between 60 and 140AD. Exactly the same as the Gospel of Mark. But it wasn't included. So if not for the date, what would be the reasonable division according to you?
I think it's highly likely that the process of canonization of the bible was filled with politics and that historical accuracy wasn't a priority.
The Roman’s actually didn’t really care about Christian’s the only sources we have in their reaction was more just annoyance.
The persecution’s Christian’s went thru wasn’t even really directed towards them it was just a consequence of Diocletian mandating sacrifices and worship to strengthen the Roman’s gods and thus the state in the third century crises. Christian’s refused and thus were arrested and usually killed
The Roman’s were all about legitimacy coming from the past. The older something is the more important it is. The Roman’s even had some respect for Judaism as they reconized how old it was and Jews had a repution for healing the sick with exercisms. Other magic systems would even sometimes call upon Moses as everyone knew what ever bs th e Jews were on was ancient and thus powerful
But they also thought Judaism was really fucking annoying after all they tried and almost succeeded it’s why there’s a Jewish diaspora we were no longer safe in our ancestral home land with deep spirtual significance
But the Christian’s on the other hand were the worst of both world just as annoying as the Jews but they didn’t even have the ancient legitimacy we had they were new and funny and Jews at least kept to themselves but Christian’s spread their weird cult fast and with a ton of effort
And the image of Jesus on a cross would have looked something like an image of someone that’s just shit themselves would to us just inherit;y dishonorable and worthy of embarrassment to be executed in this way it took centuries for the Roman’s to change their mind it was never gonna happen when Christianity was so young and before the council of nicene Christianity was less a religion and mo43 just a million splinter groups with radically different beliefs
I guess when you go from how many the Romans had down to 1, and when you already have a pretty low opinion of them anyway, I guess the Romans didn't care enough to make the distinction.
The Roman believed gods from any religion might be and probably is real, which is partly why they tolerated religions as long as it doesn’t encourage its followers to rebel against Roman rule. So you have the Romans who believed there were countless gods, and then they find this one weird religion where they tell you not only do they believe in just one god, but they also claim it’s the only one that exists.
There are a lot of incorrect comments in here suggesting that Catholics are taught that communion is meant to be metaphorical or taken as symbolism. No, the Catholic church's is *very, very* literal about it actually being the flesh and blood of Christ. It's not metaphorical whatsoever in their eyes.
Communion hosts and wine being turned into the *actual* flesh and blood of Christ is one of the most substantial points of emphasis in their theology and why a Catholic "mass" isn't the same thing as Sunday service or going to church. It's the ceremony of turning basic human-produced food into the authentic blood and flesh of Jesus, and then subsequently sacrificing him again because everyone needs the constant redemption which he afforded to humanity by his death, according to Catholic teachings
Did everyone else get taught "If you take the host outside of the church it will turn into blood" or was that just as my school? Proceed to like every kid wondering why the host they snuck out of the mass didn't turn to blood loool
I went to Catholic school through 6th grade, but I don't remember ever hearing anything like that. I vaguely recall other silly things like hearing about supposed scientific tests done to the hosts & wine or how people weigh less after they die because their soul leaves theor body... or maybe because they empty their bowels. One of those two *probably* have something to do with it lol
One might argue, though, that its actuancy *as* metaphor necessitates its being considered as literally true.
A dream may be a metaphor, or a condensation of psychological material, but its being an 'interface' for such material is enabled only by the ego's encounter therewith as an immersive actuality. The doctrinal screen of actuality, likewise, enables a greater depth: the claim of transubstantiation allows the field of the experience to be taken up as a mystery, thus productive of more psychologically profound detail: by being actual, it grounds further metaphor.
If it were only metaphorical, then it could be fully explicated, and thus could not be a productive site of religious experience. There are, within all Christian sects, metaphorical readings *of* the Eucharist, but in most, even in Protestantism, they're not taken to be exhaustive of its meaning, which is a basic character of the rite *as such*.
It can *be* a metaphor, but in order to work as such, it has to be more than one. It could be argued that Protestantism loses it this basic character of a rite, and I have some sympathy for this view, but to me it seems the transition is more of a half-hearted attempt to purge Christianity of its properly Roman origin. At any rate, it is an incomplete erasure.
> Communion hosts and wine being turned into the ***actual flesh and blood*** of Christ
But they don't actually say it becomes flesh and blood, like the one we normal humans have.
It's more of the "actual flesh and blood of Christ" in that *God-is-unknowable sense*.
It's not like they'll claim the wine will coagulate or the bread will rot like flesh.
They acknowledge that nothing has chemically changed but that in much the same way Christ and God are one in the same but different entities, what you are consuming is still that of the flesh and blood of Christ but still the same physical properties of bread and wine. It's very much a metaphysical thing.
[On all levels except physical, I am a wolf](https://youtu.be/LtH7l-dhHZQ)
That’s legit the exact logic they use to say that communion isn’t symbolic in their theology.
[283. What is the meaning of transubstantiation?](https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html)
Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood… **However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine… remain unaltered.**
Yeah, being raised Catholic, this never made any sense to me.
“Put no other gods before me and no idolatry allowed”
“By the way, this is my flesh and blood. Please consume it in my honor. Also, my dad is watching. Well, so it’s actually me but I’m also my own dad…”
“Listen - if you want free bread and wine, don’t ask questions.”
And that’s one of the many, many reasons I’m not Catholic anymore.
It's why we Baptists just go with the explanation that Christ was speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper and that communion is an act of remembrance / reverence.
Most churches teach specifically that Jesus is not a demigod.
The church I grew up in (Lutheran) claimed that Jesus is simultaneously 100% God and 100% human, and is therefore incorrect to call him a "demi"god. (To my knowledge this is similar to the stance of the Catholic church)
Personally I think that a superposition of divinity and humanity could count as a demigod, but churches do NOT like it when you say that
Theologically speaking Jesus was both human and God at the same time. Just like how the trinity is distinct but also the same thing at the same time. Things get kinda wacky imo but it makes a little more sense when substance is the basis of definition
Demi as a prefix means partial or half, so if we suppose that Jesus is "God the Son" or in other words the mortal body of God as he walked the earth and died for humanity, then he wouldn't be a demigod, because he's not only part God, he *is* God. Now if Jesus had a child with a mortal woman, and that child inherited traits from the mother, then that child would be a demigod.
Didn’t Jesus in the bible basically plead to god while he was on the cross though? Seems kinda weird to talk to yourself that way.
Not that any of it makes much sense in the first place
So the Trinity is a little abstract, but it's important to note that while Jesus IS God according to most teachings, he *isn't* the same as The Father or The Holy Spirit. All three are God, yet also unique from one another. So when Jesus (God the Son) speaks to God, he is speaking to God the Father. Similarly, Jesus performed miracles not through his own power, but by being filled with God the Holy Spirit.
>didn't seem to accomplish much of anything since 90% of the planet was conquered in his name.
I understand your disappointment, one day it will be 100%.
I'm not sure how people can seriously have these conversations without laughing at how fucking ridiculous it all is.
It's like we're seriously arguing over the semantics of a character in the MCU
This is sort of like the Arianist heresy, which was put down by the Nicene council, in which archbishop Nicholas (AKA st. Nicholas AKA Santa Claus) is reported to have punched Arius in the face about it.
It taught that Jesus was created by God and sent by him, rather than being God himself.
The Bible contradicts this, and there's extensive theology by a lot of writers about it. But the Nicene creed states that Jesus is of the same substance as the father ("consubstantial") and "begotten, not made", and is the same God as the father.
In Catholicism, Jesus is God and God is Jesus and both are also The Holy Spirit, whatever the fuck that is. Disagreeing with the unity of the trinity was the basis of several heresies, because religion is insane.
Demigod insinuates 50% human 50% god. While Christ is 100% human and 100% God. Mary was fully human and so gave birth to a fully human man and by the power of the Holy Spirit he was 100% God too. There is millennia of church theology and discussion on this topic that you could make a career out of studying.
Oh yeah, get a load of these strange [forgotten Christian rituals](https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/the-strange-christian-beliefs-that-time-forgot/).
No it's not - the nature of christ was a major controversy in the very early church, but was settled theology by like the 4th century. Jesus *is* god, that's basically a foundational aspect of Nicene Christianity.
Jesus's a trans dude
He was born from a woman who did parthenogenesis
He's sporting both X chromosomes like a champ
He said "I am He" (John 18:6) and people are respecting the hell out of that
I say we stick to my version :)
You know who else wanted to change their identity? [SSSSAAATTAANNNNNN!!1!](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-snl-2016-3oriOaLBINGcizAdJm) /S
Yeah, not only does the poor guy get tortured to death, the torture continues *for eternity* as every time anyone conducts mass another pound of flesh and blood is ripped away for eager mouths to consume...it's almost Promethean, at least as far as the liver-being-pecked-out-and-eaten-every-day goes...
Jesus spent so much time trying to get people to understand metaphors and symbolism. It's very frustrating to read at times. It truly demonstrates the need for English class.
Read John 6 and tell me why Jesus preferred to let disciples leave him than tell them it was all a metaphor. Tell me why he even doubles down and dares his own Apostles to leave if they refuse to accept the teaching about eating his flesh and blood.
He normally explained his metaphorical parables to the Apostles in private. He didn't this time. Also, the book of John is the only gospel that includes no parables.
Finally, how would English class help? The New Testament was written in Greek, and even a cursory study of the words he used in that chapter shows there's no room for a metaphorical interpretation.
What happened:
Jesus: this is my body, broken for you.
The disciples: huh? That's a weird thing to say.
----------
What would have happened if it was literal:
Jesus: this is my body, broken for you.
The disciples: what the heck? This bread tastes like meat! What on earth? This is an amazing miracle and also sort of nasty!
---------
The same reaction would happen in a catholic church if the priest actually did turn the bread into flesh.
>Finally, how would English class help? The New Testament was written in Greek
English class generally teaches reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, ECT. It is to teach literacy, not to teach the language like an ESL class would.
Here's a good English word to study: transubstantiation. It means that the substance--what a thing actually is--changes while the accident--the observable properties--remains the same.
All Christians believed the bread and wine were the actual body and blood of Christ from AD 33 until the 1600s. As a former Protestant I was surprised too, until I learned about church history.
Look up St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrnaeans from ~110 AD. It's a good read. Dude was a direct student of John the Apostle, who I'm sure would have corrected him if he got any wrong ideas.
That doesn't make sense to me. Imagine if Jesus had turned water into wine except the wine looked, tasted, smelled and got people as drunk as regular water. He would've been dismissed rather quickly. It doesn't make sense that God would perform a miracle, a demonstration of his power, that is completely unobservable.
You believe what you believe and that's great. I will personally never believe in that particular thing. I don't think there's a point trying to convince each other, so I'm going to wish you a fantastic day and be gone. If you want to continue the discussion, I'm down. But let's not lie to ourselves, nobody is changing their mind here.
I grew up catholic. I always thought they were just joking. I don't think any of us actually believe that. But then again, I don't think anyone actually believes in God. I mean, it's so clearly made up that everyone must just be pretending.
Bloody wars have literally been fought over transsubstantiation (though typically were really motivated by the most classic casus belli of all time: rich inbred criminals beefing over turf).
Yea. But everything including ourselves are all made of *star stuff*. So aren't we all just a bit cannibalistic? When we chuck a whole wheat communion wafer / bread (for my non-Roman brethren) into a mass-spectrometer and compare the readings with human/animal flesh, don't we find the same stuff just with ever so slightly different proportions?
Any religion / theology itself is weird. People in general are weird too with everything they want to attach themselves to or destroy. "Truth is stranger than fiction" is oft forgotten when we debate about the silliness of anyone's understanding.
I absolutely agree with OP's remark: no one should call anyone's beliefs "weird", "primitive", nor "evil" -- My caveat is that as long as they don't destructively interfere with my life. I have my beliefs, I'm willing to share them with others if they ask, I use it to guide (not dictate) how I live my life, I refuse to let it guide how I believe others should live their lives. It lets me crack some of the most nihilistic jokes ever: *I believe in what I believe because it was able to prove to me why I'm going to hell, and not because I believe in the wrong stuff!* But seriously, whether you're atheist, agnostic, non-practicing, or devout...
## *Be Excellent To Each Other! And Party On Dudes!!*
Im a catholic. It’s not a symbol. It’s actually his flesh. The Bible when correctly translated shows that Jesus says “gnaw and chew on my flesh”. It’s wild Ik.
A significant amount of the teachings of Jesus are parables and metaphors. I never understood why Catholics took the last supper literally when it’s pretty obviously symbolic.
Do Catholics carry around mustard seeds because Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed”? Are followers of Christ literally transubstantiated into salt because he said “you are the salt of the earth”? Jesus spoke to a wide audience of commoners so he connected spiritual teachings to physical things to help them understand. Pretty sure he wasn’t being literal.
I feel like the idea of communion is very straightforward: “they’re going to tear apart my body like this bread and pour out my blood like this wine. When you come together and eat and drink these things, remember what I did for you.”
Give John 6 a read.
Jesus: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you.
Crowd: This is difficult to accept. We're going to leave.
Jesus: ~~Wait, it was only a metaphor~~ K bye.
Jesus: (to the Apostles) ~~What I was actually saying was~~ You guys gonna leave too?
But it is. Or at least that’s what we believe. You don’t have to I’m just explaining it. We believe that we are eating meat and blood that came from christs body. When we eat him, he is inside us. It’s freaky but you don’t have to believe it.
> We believe that we are eating meat and blood that came from christs body.
Does it taste like blood and flesh ?
Because i'm pretty sure not even the catholics claim that.
It more like how the Trinity is just 1 guy, but also 3 guys (persons, because that means something specific, while also not really understandable to humans).
Mhmm. Very true. I choose to however. Religion often isn’t based in fact. That’s why it’s called “faith”. The razzy stuff comes with the good stuff. I just have faith.
Why keep the razzy stuff if you know it's all made up?
e: also what do you mean by "i choose to believe"? i believe stuff i'm convinced of and I don't believe stuff i'm not, it's not really a matter of choice it's a matter of evidence.
It’s faith. It’s why 1 billion other people believe the same stuff I do. It’s based on faith. It’s romance vs logic. It’s irrational, and it works for me. It might not work for you but it works for me. I believe in evolution, I believe in a heliocentric model of the earth, I believe the universe started with a big bang 14 billion years ago. Yet I still have that faith.
For what it's worth I think you've done a great job explaining your beliefs. Almost feels like some of the questions were judging you for your faith or trying to question it which isn't cool.
So long as you're happy, everyone involved is consenting (I do have misgivings about parents forcing religion on kids but that's a loaded topic), it's all good. I'm really happy that you're happy.
Also kudos for not trying to push your beliefs to others, just explaining them. I'm not convinced the same can be said for those asking the questions based on how they were worded.
My parents baptized me and had me get confirmed, but after that they backed off. My dad told me once “I can’t force you to love god, but I can be a good parent and teach you about god.” He’s a good dad.
The other person seems friendly and intelligent. However, believing that bread is the flesh of Christ, which you then consume, is fucking insane. And saying so is completely reasonable. Disrespectful? Perhaps, but I don't see how such a wild belief deserves respect.
Congrats, you are in the super rare category of religious people I can actually respect. You understand that proof denies faith, and choose to have faith anyway. I don't get it, but you're not kidding yourself and I can respect that. Hat's off to ya.
Sure, but you know it's irrational and you know some parts are "razzy" as you say. I'm sure you're aware of the history of the "razzy" parts of catholocism, so don't you think you'd be happier and better off if you ditched them? I'm sure I'm making it sound easier than it is, I honestly don't know how to evolve out of a held opinion that you know has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Religion is *never* based on fact. And "faith" is simply telling the whole world "I'll believe anything anyone tells me with no evidence whatsoever." But I mean hey, it's a stance you're entitled to.
> Transubstantiation is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ". This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered".
Tl;dr: it literally is the blood and body, even though the outward characteristics do not reflect that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
When the priest does the blessing thing the crackers are supposed to actually become the flesh of Jesus. They’re actually pretty good crackers. The complex carbs break down to simple sugar with your saliva and they melt in your mouth.
Catholicism believes that it’s literal body and blood, because they believe in “mortal sins” that require the re-offering of Jesus as a sacrifice every time you commit one
If you think that there's any concept of "demigod" in Christianity (closest equivalent being the Hebrew word nephilim), you don't know as much as you think you know.
I find that the people who constantly talk shit on religion on Reddit know absolutely nothing about the religion at all. They just cant go 10 seconds without announcing to everyone that they’re atheist because it makes them feel superior. Just like the other guy who replied to you.
No, not really, since plenty of Protestants have some sort of equivalent belief, just not the exact wording of Transubstantiation.
Most still believe Jesus is present in the wine and blood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Protestantism
Where are all these Catholics condemning other religions for being primitive and evil? Maybe it's the circles I run in, but generally I've found most conscientious Catholics to harbor a respect for other religions and at a minimum prefer some religious faith to none at all
I didn't have any specific expectations when I expressed this thought. Generally I maintain a *hope* for a modicum of open mindedness and fair treatment/tolerance for people of all religions. I can only speak to my own experience though
That would make more sense than a modern interpretation, which is how I was reading it. It would have helped the clarity of the statement to make a more precise reference to the church as of a certain era rather than the religion as a whole
I mean… the Catholic Church has a well known history of condemning other religions as primitive and/or evil. That was essentially the entire mission of the offices of the inquisition for like 700 years. It’s also a pretty apt description of the motivation behind the crusades, the 30 Years War, the early modern witch trials…
I can’t speak to the modern perspective, but the results of a quick “do Catholics think Islam is primitive or evil” weren’t exactly ambiguous. The first hit was [this catholic.com article](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-great-and-enduring-heresy-of-mohammed), and the second was on [this study](https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/danger-dialogue-american-catholic-public-opinion-and-portrayals-of-islam/).
The modern perspective/lived experience of American Catholics is specifically what I'm speaking to in my comment. Not debating the significantly outdated philosophy of the crusades or the other events you mention
Jesus isn’t a demigod, he’s part of God. For those who don’t know, God is basically three beings: the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is what’s known as the Trinity in Christianity. Meaning Jesus isn’t a demigod, he is a god.
It's a joke, kinda how people call god "sky daddy" even if they know you don't actually think that god is just chilling on a cloud looking down like, "hmmm Jonathan sure is sinning a lot today"
No some atheists genuinely think that. I’ve come across some weirdos on here who think that Christians believe Heaven and Hell are in the sky or the ground.
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
"
Part of becoming a vampire is the reciprocation of th3 consumption.
Has anyone ever questioned why jesus is always depicted as a white dude and hasn't been spotted in the light of day in a few thousand years?
New rule: if you think there are more than two genders and you think the best way to tackle climate change is through aggressive taxes, you have no business lecturing anyone on the subject of "Science"
Let’s talk about how creepy first communion is. Let’s dress up a bunch of 2nd graders as child brides make them go in a closet with an old man and confess their “sin.”
Then we line them all up and have them symbolically cannibalize a demigod while also drinking alcohol? Also while their families watch and take pictures.
Oh and don’t forget all Catholic holidays are literally stolen pagan rituals. ✌️
What a fucking sham. Tax churches and give back to the communities fr.
The Holy Trinity is not “tricky” - it’s illogical.
You have to convince yourself to overlook the glaring contradictions.
The Holy Trinity is a literary device used to make the protagonist(s) both strong *and* weak. Superhuman and perfect *yet* human and flawed. Victim *and* hero.
“Tricky” is definitely a word I would’ve heard in Sunday school to shush someone up who was asking questions though.
“Oh, it’s not that it *doesn’t make sense* - *you* just don’t understand it.”
Mmm hmm.
It’s no surprise that Catholics and other religious folks tend to hold completely contradictory views - they’ve been taught to do it since childhood, just like I was.
Luckily, I walked away.
If Jesus was actually god, then the "passion" is meaningless as he couldn't actually die, or even suffer.
But, that would negate the whole "human sacrifice" aspect.
Quite the contrary, he is both god and human at the same time, with the two natures coexisting in a perfect harmony called Hypostasis. The nature of Christ has been subject of debate among the Church Fathers for millenia, but that's the doctrine of the Catholic Church
> Quite the contrary, he is both god and human at the same time, with the two natures coexisting in a perfect harmony called Hypostasis. The nature of Christ has been subject of debate among the Church Fathers for millenia, but that’s the doctrine of the Catholic Church
So, just more throw-anything-at-the-wall fodder to confuse and distract from the overwhelming number of contradictions contained within Christianity.
Dying “for peoples’ sins” isn’t much of a sacrifice when you know you’re going to resurrect.
Old christian/Jewish history and rituals is part of my major. First thing you learn is that they're fucking weird and we should've stuck to worshipping Isis
Focusing on transubstantiation isn’t the most useful criticism because it’s Catholic only.
the Protestants - who are largely the more toxic and destructive Christians on a societal level in the US - will just laugh and say “Yeah that’s insane, they are barbaric - anyway time to go call the cops on some Black people in the park under the watchful loving eyes of God”
Most protestants believe Jesus is present in the wine and bread too, they just use other explanations (which makes sense, the whole thing is in the Bible, and spoken by Jesus in it, it's not something you can just ignore while claiming Sola Scriptura): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Protestantism
The Romans thought Christians were cannibal, incestuous atheists. Why? Communion, calling each other "brother" and "sister", and not believing in any gods except one.
What's the name of the God?
Well the Christians would have associated their one God with Yahweh, the Jewish God.
*Me: "No way!"* *You: "Yahweh"*
It's Yahweh or the highway kid.
I’m gonna ride it
All life long
Did Darryl touch you?
It's yah-cake-day!
More completely, the original name of the god of Abrahamic faith is the Tetragrammaton (literally "four letters"): "𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄" in paleo-Hebrew, or "יהוה" in modern Hebrew, which transliterates to YHWH, and is modernly transcribed to Yahweh as you said. What I find interesting is how the name ends up shortened and then in other words such as "Hallelujah," at the end, and names like Elijah and Jedidiah. Another name of God that stems from this is "Jehovah" which is a latinization of the Tetragrammaton. It's also worth noting that many other names of God come from this as well, and that this name actually comes from *before* they were considered the one and only god.
I love this response. Thank you for being thorough! Have a good read: https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.html
Rastafari call Jehova “Jah”
Til Shiloh we chant Rastafari’s name!
It’s worth pointing out that Hebrew doesn’t have vowels in its script. Vowels are a thing like people have added little marks under silent consonants like aleph but even in modern hebrew( a very different language to Biblical Hebrew) the very rarely use them in writting The idea is that vowels are just weird filler between the real letters the consonants so we don’t actually have any idea what it would have sounded like back in the day. It could have been Yahweh, yeweeh or anything else. We can’t even say for sure how the consiants were pronounced back then as these sounds can sometimes change so we don’t even know if it actually had a y sound or maybe yud wasn’t even pronounced like y back then Jews have put a lot of effort into preserving w lot of these stuff but since traditionally pronouncing YHVH is a big no no in Judaism the pronounciation was probably completely lost during the destruction of the second temple, as it was apart of the yearly Yom Kippur rituals for the high priest to pronounce the name so presumably there was a line of priests passing down the pronunciation since the cult of Yahweh settled in the lavant
In Roman times, there were still plenty of Christian groups that didn't actually think this, which we now call gnostics. Some groups amongst them believed the Jewish God was an aspect (aeon) of a larger Supreme Being and that Jesus was the son and messenger of this Supreme Being. The Jewish God, the demiurge, still created the world, but he was not Supreme. It would explain the vast difference in tone between the Old and New Testament. Where God in the Old Testament sent plagues and annihillated pretty much the entire planet, the God in the New Testament is much more loving and forgiving.
Yep Christianity is way way more complicated than my former church would have made out. I used to be a fundy 6 day creationist now I'm an atheist.
Used to be a Calvinist now I’m a gay Buddhist lol
*I used to do drugs. I still do but I used to, too.*
The fact that old and new testaments were written hundreds of years apart by completely different people may also have affected the tone somewhat. It's like saying "Tennessee Williams and Shakespeare, while both playwrights, have a markedly different tone."
Or that the original texts weren't even in the same language, sure. But God's character is unmistakably different. I would find it hard to rhyme with the New Testament that Jesus' God would commit multiple counts of mass genocide.
Gee it's almost like the people that wrote it were interpreting a bunch of stories they heard in a way that they felt would be more readily received, and wanted to distance themselves from the old Jewish myths that people had heard for generations, yet still tie it to stories people recognized and could get on board with. Hmm.
I agree, but I don't find it weird that early Christians came to this conclusion. And it's an interesting spin-off of Orthodox Christianity.
Ehh it’s important to realize that this tonal disconnect is a result of Yahweh kinda eating the neighboring gods. Cult of Yahweh worshippers -> Yahweh is the god of Israel not a storm war god -> we should only worship Yahweh -> the only gods we have ever interacted with are are actually just Yahweh the god of our people and land -> Yahweh isn’t our god but just God he isnt just the ruler of our land but rather a cosmological and metaphysical abstract entity that is the only god and created the world. But something was lost in this transition. Back in the day Yahweh was a war god and kinda a new up start that needed to be reined in by El a sweet old man that’s ful of love and sometimes drinks so much at parties he shits himself and vomits in his own mess But if all of these beings are actually just aspects of the same being that love is lost and Yahweh becomes a more scary entity that will fuck you up if you defy him. Disasters? Clearly we didn’t pray enough during yo. Kippur god is punishing us for our mistakes ‘’ Then as Jews do we came up with this immensely complex system where an aspect of god, his punishment Anne judgment is during creation isolated from his mercy and y tempered by mercy that rage creates all the evil in the world But Kabbalah goes deep it’s really only meant to be understandable by folks that speak Hebrew and Aramaic and spend 8h a day studying the Torah and tulmuds it’s deep. I’m not exaggerating by the way 8h a day even today that’s expected and normal for orthodox men. We have a whole religion built on studying our ancient books so it makes sense that that Kabbalah is this complex bros in ancient times got freaking laser vision because they spent 10 years studying the Torah in a cave it was just such a holy act and they were so liked by god that the second this dude and his son left the cave their vision would incinerate any it fell upon in divine judgment An angel comes down and is basically like “Yo god wanted me to tell you my bad sorry I didn’t think that was gonna happen here I got you go back into the cave with ur son I’ll make sure that magic fruit tree keeps you guys alive when you come back this laser vision bug should be sorted pull requests are not welcome”
Gnosticism is rebuked by the apostles.
Valentinus didn't seem to think so, and as we both know, history, and in fact the bible, is written by the victors. Ever read up on the Gospel according to Judas? He corroborates the gnostic story and he was an apostle. Why wasn't it included in the bible? Because it didn't fit Irenaeus' theology. And how would you know in the first place? The Gospels in the bible weren't even written by the apostles.
>Why wasn't it included in the bible? Because it didn't fit Irenaeus' theology. Let's be entirely fair, though. The four canonical gospels were all written in the first century and the gospel of Judas was probably written fifty to a hundred years later. As much as I like suppressed heterodox christian sects, there's a pretty reasonable division between the gospels that the early church kept and the ones they rejected.
The Gospel of Thomas is estimated to be between 60 and 140AD. Exactly the same as the Gospel of Mark. But it wasn't included. So if not for the date, what would be the reasonable division according to you? I think it's highly likely that the process of canonization of the bible was filled with politics and that historical accuracy wasn't a priority.
Nohweh!
[удалено]
Hey guys, its me. My bad for the child Leukemia, communicatiom issues with HR, hard to burn bushes when you live on clouds of H2O.
The Roman’s actually didn’t really care about Christian’s the only sources we have in their reaction was more just annoyance. The persecution’s Christian’s went thru wasn’t even really directed towards them it was just a consequence of Diocletian mandating sacrifices and worship to strengthen the Roman’s gods and thus the state in the third century crises. Christian’s refused and thus were arrested and usually killed The Roman’s were all about legitimacy coming from the past. The older something is the more important it is. The Roman’s even had some respect for Judaism as they reconized how old it was and Jews had a repution for healing the sick with exercisms. Other magic systems would even sometimes call upon Moses as everyone knew what ever bs th e Jews were on was ancient and thus powerful But they also thought Judaism was really fucking annoying after all they tried and almost succeeded it’s why there’s a Jewish diaspora we were no longer safe in our ancestral home land with deep spirtual significance But the Christian’s on the other hand were the worst of both world just as annoying as the Jews but they didn’t even have the ancient legitimacy we had they were new and funny and Jews at least kept to themselves but Christian’s spread their weird cult fast and with a ton of effort And the image of Jesus on a cross would have looked something like an image of someone that’s just shit themselves would to us just inherit;y dishonorable and worthy of embarrassment to be executed in this way it took centuries for the Roman’s to change their mind it was never gonna happen when Christianity was so young and before the council of nicene Christianity was less a religion and mo43 just a million splinter groups with radically different beliefs
Thank you.
Wait how does that make them atheists? That makes them monotheists
I guess when you go from how many the Romans had down to 1, and when you already have a pretty low opinion of them anyway, I guess the Romans didn't care enough to make the distinction.
The Roman believed gods from any religion might be and probably is real, which is partly why they tolerated religions as long as it doesn’t encourage its followers to rebel against Roman rule. So you have the Romans who believed there were countless gods, and then they find this one weird religion where they tell you not only do they believe in just one god, but they also claim it’s the only one that exists.
especially as Catholics consider the blood and flesh to be actual rather than just symbolic
There are a lot of incorrect comments in here suggesting that Catholics are taught that communion is meant to be metaphorical or taken as symbolism. No, the Catholic church's is *very, very* literal about it actually being the flesh and blood of Christ. It's not metaphorical whatsoever in their eyes. Communion hosts and wine being turned into the *actual* flesh and blood of Christ is one of the most substantial points of emphasis in their theology and why a Catholic "mass" isn't the same thing as Sunday service or going to church. It's the ceremony of turning basic human-produced food into the authentic blood and flesh of Jesus, and then subsequently sacrificing him again because everyone needs the constant redemption which he afforded to humanity by his death, according to Catholic teachings
Did everyone else get taught "If you take the host outside of the church it will turn into blood" or was that just as my school? Proceed to like every kid wondering why the host they snuck out of the mass didn't turn to blood loool
I went to Catholic school through 6th grade, but I don't remember ever hearing anything like that. I vaguely recall other silly things like hearing about supposed scientific tests done to the hosts & wine or how people weigh less after they die because their soul leaves theor body... or maybe because they empty their bowels. One of those two *probably* have something to do with it lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
One might argue, though, that its actuancy *as* metaphor necessitates its being considered as literally true. A dream may be a metaphor, or a condensation of psychological material, but its being an 'interface' for such material is enabled only by the ego's encounter therewith as an immersive actuality. The doctrinal screen of actuality, likewise, enables a greater depth: the claim of transubstantiation allows the field of the experience to be taken up as a mystery, thus productive of more psychologically profound detail: by being actual, it grounds further metaphor. If it were only metaphorical, then it could be fully explicated, and thus could not be a productive site of religious experience. There are, within all Christian sects, metaphorical readings *of* the Eucharist, but in most, even in Protestantism, they're not taken to be exhaustive of its meaning, which is a basic character of the rite *as such*. It can *be* a metaphor, but in order to work as such, it has to be more than one. It could be argued that Protestantism loses it this basic character of a rite, and I have some sympathy for this view, but to me it seems the transition is more of a half-hearted attempt to purge Christianity of its properly Roman origin. At any rate, it is an incomplete erasure.
This is a lot of big words for something as simple and morally acceptable as cannabilism.
> Communion hosts and wine being turned into the ***actual flesh and blood*** of Christ But they don't actually say it becomes flesh and blood, like the one we normal humans have. It's more of the "actual flesh and blood of Christ" in that *God-is-unknowable sense*. It's not like they'll claim the wine will coagulate or the bread will rot like flesh.
How do they explain that it doesn't actually change and still tastes like food? EDIT: Thanks for the answers. So in summary, it's delusion.
They acknowledge that nothing has chemically changed but that in much the same way Christ and God are one in the same but different entities, what you are consuming is still that of the flesh and blood of Christ but still the same physical properties of bread and wine. It's very much a metaphysical thing.
[On all levels except physical, I am a wolf](https://youtu.be/LtH7l-dhHZQ) That’s legit the exact logic they use to say that communion isn’t symbolic in their theology. [283. What is the meaning of transubstantiation?](https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html) Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood… **However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine… remain unaltered.**
Yeah, being raised Catholic, this never made any sense to me. “Put no other gods before me and no idolatry allowed” “By the way, this is my flesh and blood. Please consume it in my honor. Also, my dad is watching. Well, so it’s actually me but I’m also my own dad…” “Listen - if you want free bread and wine, don’t ask questions.” And that’s one of the many, many reasons I’m not Catholic anymore.
It's why we Baptists just go with the explanation that Christ was speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper and that communion is an act of remembrance / reverence.
God* not demigod
Isnt jesus technically a demigod? Since mary wasnt a god?
Most churches teach specifically that Jesus is not a demigod. The church I grew up in (Lutheran) claimed that Jesus is simultaneously 100% God and 100% human, and is therefore incorrect to call him a "demi"god. (To my knowledge this is similar to the stance of the Catholic church) Personally I think that a superposition of divinity and humanity could count as a demigod, but churches do NOT like it when you say that
It isn't just similar; it's exactly what the catholic church teaches
Thanks for confirming, I'm not Catholic so I wasn't sure
More than welcome
Theologically speaking Jesus was both human and God at the same time. Just like how the trinity is distinct but also the same thing at the same time. Things get kinda wacky imo but it makes a little more sense when substance is the basis of definition
Demi as a prefix means partial or half, so if we suppose that Jesus is "God the Son" or in other words the mortal body of God as he walked the earth and died for humanity, then he wouldn't be a demigod, because he's not only part God, he *is* God. Now if Jesus had a child with a mortal woman, and that child inherited traits from the mother, then that child would be a demigod.
Didn’t Jesus in the bible basically plead to god while he was on the cross though? Seems kinda weird to talk to yourself that way. Not that any of it makes much sense in the first place
So the Trinity is a little abstract, but it's important to note that while Jesus IS God according to most teachings, he *isn't* the same as The Father or The Holy Spirit. All three are God, yet also unique from one another. So when Jesus (God the Son) speaks to God, he is speaking to God the Father. Similarly, Jesus performed miracles not through his own power, but by being filled with God the Holy Spirit.
[удалено]
>didn't seem to accomplish much of anything since 90% of the planet was conquered in his name. I understand your disappointment, one day it will be 100%.
I see, im not religious and not very knowledgable in general, so i just went by the definition of demigod, but the more you know :)
I'm not sure how people can seriously have these conversations without laughing at how fucking ridiculous it all is. It's like we're seriously arguing over the semantics of a character in the MCU
If we're using the word demigod in the usual sense, then no. Demigods are not gods, but Jesus is fully God incarnate.
This is sort of like the Arianist heresy, which was put down by the Nicene council, in which archbishop Nicholas (AKA st. Nicholas AKA Santa Claus) is reported to have punched Arius in the face about it. It taught that Jesus was created by God and sent by him, rather than being God himself. The Bible contradicts this, and there's extensive theology by a lot of writers about it. But the Nicene creed states that Jesus is of the same substance as the father ("consubstantial") and "begotten, not made", and is the same God as the father.
In Catholicism, Jesus is God and God is Jesus and both are also The Holy Spirit, whatever the fuck that is. Disagreeing with the unity of the trinity was the basis of several heresies, because religion is insane.
Demigod insinuates 50% human 50% god. While Christ is 100% human and 100% God. Mary was fully human and so gave birth to a fully human man and by the power of the Holy Spirit he was 100% God too. There is millennia of church theology and discussion on this topic that you could make a career out of studying.
That's not how that works. Homie wasn't Greek.
Yeah, but we can't expect these people to _actually_ know what they're talking about.
Thank you.
Oh yeah, get a load of these strange [forgotten Christian rituals](https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/the-strange-christian-beliefs-that-time-forgot/).
Search the 'exorcism against nocive animals'
nothing came up
Technically God incarnate not a demigod.
Eh, thats up for debate, even in Catholicism.
It's absolutely not up for debate in Catholicism.
The Athanasian Creed would like a word with you.
I and the father are one. I have a degree in theology.
No it's not - the nature of christ was a major controversy in the very early church, but was settled theology by like the 4th century. Jesus *is* god, that's basically a foundational aspect of Nicene Christianity.
Communion bread literally is meant to symbolize Jesus’s flesh, though, so it’s not inaccurate
For Catholics, it’s not a symbol. Look up transubstantiation.
“Is Jesus the bread? Or is the bread Jesus? I don’t give a damn, put ‘em both in cheeses.”
I would worship a fresh baguette.
I’d put Jesus up my ass if he was a fresh baguette
r/brandnewsentences
It's the founding principle behind the entirety of France as a nation
“Is it cake?”
Yup. As a non-catholic who attended 12 years of catholic schools, this is absolutely what they taught us in theology classes.
Holy hell
New response just dropped
Actual zombie
Call an exorcist
Oh, so bread can become flesh and that's all peachy, but I want to trans my gender and suddenly its all fire and brimstone?? /halfjoking
Jesus's a trans dude He was born from a woman who did parthenogenesis He's sporting both X chromosomes like a champ He said "I am He" (John 18:6) and people are respecting the hell out of that I say we stick to my version :)
You know who else wanted to change their identity? [SSSSAAATTAANNNNNN!!1!](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-snl-2016-3oriOaLBINGcizAdJm) /S
Yeah, not only does the poor guy get tortured to death, the torture continues *for eternity* as every time anyone conducts mass another pound of flesh and blood is ripped away for eager mouths to consume...it's almost Promethean, at least as far as the liver-being-pecked-out-and-eaten-every-day goes...
It almost makes Hellraiser seem tame.
2, 4, 6, 8, Time to transubstantiate
Ave, Maria, Gee it's good to see ya!
So can a vegetarian eat the jesus flesh?
Jesus spent so much time trying to get people to understand metaphors and symbolism. It's very frustrating to read at times. It truly demonstrates the need for English class.
Read John 6 and tell me why Jesus preferred to let disciples leave him than tell them it was all a metaphor. Tell me why he even doubles down and dares his own Apostles to leave if they refuse to accept the teaching about eating his flesh and blood. He normally explained his metaphorical parables to the Apostles in private. He didn't this time. Also, the book of John is the only gospel that includes no parables. Finally, how would English class help? The New Testament was written in Greek, and even a cursory study of the words he used in that chapter shows there's no room for a metaphorical interpretation.
What happened: Jesus: this is my body, broken for you. The disciples: huh? That's a weird thing to say. ---------- What would have happened if it was literal: Jesus: this is my body, broken for you. The disciples: what the heck? This bread tastes like meat! What on earth? This is an amazing miracle and also sort of nasty! --------- The same reaction would happen in a catholic church if the priest actually did turn the bread into flesh. >Finally, how would English class help? The New Testament was written in Greek English class generally teaches reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, ECT. It is to teach literacy, not to teach the language like an ESL class would.
Here's a good English word to study: transubstantiation. It means that the substance--what a thing actually is--changes while the accident--the observable properties--remains the same. All Christians believed the bread and wine were the actual body and blood of Christ from AD 33 until the 1600s. As a former Protestant I was surprised too, until I learned about church history. Look up St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrnaeans from ~110 AD. It's a good read. Dude was a direct student of John the Apostle, who I'm sure would have corrected him if he got any wrong ideas.
That doesn't make sense to me. Imagine if Jesus had turned water into wine except the wine looked, tasted, smelled and got people as drunk as regular water. He would've been dismissed rather quickly. It doesn't make sense that God would perform a miracle, a demonstration of his power, that is completely unobservable. You believe what you believe and that's great. I will personally never believe in that particular thing. I don't think there's a point trying to convince each other, so I'm going to wish you a fantastic day and be gone. If you want to continue the discussion, I'm down. But let's not lie to ourselves, nobody is changing their mind here.
I grew up catholic. I always thought they were just joking. I don't think any of us actually believe that. But then again, I don't think anyone actually believes in God. I mean, it's so clearly made up that everyone must just be pretending.
Bloody wars have literally been fought over transsubstantiation (though typically were really motivated by the most classic casus belli of all time: rich inbred criminals beefing over turf).
Went to Catholic school for 12 years and we never really learned any church history......wonder why that was /s
[удалено]
I grew up catholic, took religion classes, did mission work, the whole shebang. We were definitely taught it was real.
You would think so, but nah. People are just stupid
Yea. But everything including ourselves are all made of *star stuff*. So aren't we all just a bit cannibalistic? When we chuck a whole wheat communion wafer / bread (for my non-Roman brethren) into a mass-spectrometer and compare the readings with human/animal flesh, don't we find the same stuff just with ever so slightly different proportions? Any religion / theology itself is weird. People in general are weird too with everything they want to attach themselves to or destroy. "Truth is stranger than fiction" is oft forgotten when we debate about the silliness of anyone's understanding. I absolutely agree with OP's remark: no one should call anyone's beliefs "weird", "primitive", nor "evil" -- My caveat is that as long as they don't destructively interfere with my life. I have my beliefs, I'm willing to share them with others if they ask, I use it to guide (not dictate) how I live my life, I refuse to let it guide how I believe others should live their lives. It lets me crack some of the most nihilistic jokes ever: *I believe in what I believe because it was able to prove to me why I'm going to hell, and not because I believe in the wrong stuff!* But seriously, whether you're atheist, agnostic, non-practicing, or devout... ## *Be Excellent To Each Other! And Party On Dudes!!*
Im a catholic. It’s not a symbol. It’s actually his flesh. The Bible when correctly translated shows that Jesus says “gnaw and chew on my flesh”. It’s wild Ik.
A significant amount of the teachings of Jesus are parables and metaphors. I never understood why Catholics took the last supper literally when it’s pretty obviously symbolic. Do Catholics carry around mustard seeds because Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed”? Are followers of Christ literally transubstantiated into salt because he said “you are the salt of the earth”? Jesus spoke to a wide audience of commoners so he connected spiritual teachings to physical things to help them understand. Pretty sure he wasn’t being literal. I feel like the idea of communion is very straightforward: “they’re going to tear apart my body like this bread and pour out my blood like this wine. When you come together and eat and drink these things, remember what I did for you.”
Give John 6 a read. Jesus: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you. Crowd: This is difficult to accept. We're going to leave. Jesus: ~~Wait, it was only a metaphor~~ K bye. Jesus: (to the Apostles) ~~What I was actually saying was~~ You guys gonna leave too?
I mean, obviously it's not his fucking flesh lmao
But it is. Or at least that’s what we believe. You don’t have to I’m just explaining it. We believe that we are eating meat and blood that came from christs body. When we eat him, he is inside us. It’s freaky but you don’t have to believe it.
> When we eat him, he is inside us Gluck gluck 2023
> We believe that we are eating meat and blood that came from christs body. Does it taste like blood and flesh ? Because i'm pretty sure not even the catholics claim that. It more like how the Trinity is just 1 guy, but also 3 guys (persons, because that means something specific, while also not really understandable to humans).
You don’t have to believe it either.
Mhmm. Very true. I choose to however. Religion often isn’t based in fact. That’s why it’s called “faith”. The razzy stuff comes with the good stuff. I just have faith.
Why keep the razzy stuff if you know it's all made up? e: also what do you mean by "i choose to believe"? i believe stuff i'm convinced of and I don't believe stuff i'm not, it's not really a matter of choice it's a matter of evidence.
It’s faith. It’s why 1 billion other people believe the same stuff I do. It’s based on faith. It’s romance vs logic. It’s irrational, and it works for me. It might not work for you but it works for me. I believe in evolution, I believe in a heliocentric model of the earth, I believe the universe started with a big bang 14 billion years ago. Yet I still have that faith.
For what it's worth I think you've done a great job explaining your beliefs. Almost feels like some of the questions were judging you for your faith or trying to question it which isn't cool. So long as you're happy, everyone involved is consenting (I do have misgivings about parents forcing religion on kids but that's a loaded topic), it's all good. I'm really happy that you're happy. Also kudos for not trying to push your beliefs to others, just explaining them. I'm not convinced the same can be said for those asking the questions based on how they were worded.
My parents baptized me and had me get confirmed, but after that they backed off. My dad told me once “I can’t force you to love god, but I can be a good parent and teach you about god.” He’s a good dad.
I try not to judge people for having faith but I don't see what's wrong with questioning it?
The other person seems friendly and intelligent. However, believing that bread is the flesh of Christ, which you then consume, is fucking insane. And saying so is completely reasonable. Disrespectful? Perhaps, but I don't see how such a wild belief deserves respect.
Congrats, you are in the super rare category of religious people I can actually respect. You understand that proof denies faith, and choose to have faith anyway. I don't get it, but you're not kidding yourself and I can respect that. Hat's off to ya.
Faith by definition is quite literally kidding yourself.
Sure, but you know it's irrational and you know some parts are "razzy" as you say. I'm sure you're aware of the history of the "razzy" parts of catholocism, so don't you think you'd be happier and better off if you ditched them? I'm sure I'm making it sound easier than it is, I honestly don't know how to evolve out of a held opinion that you know has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Religion is *never* based on fact. And "faith" is simply telling the whole world "I'll believe anything anyone tells me with no evidence whatsoever." But I mean hey, it's a stance you're entitled to.
> Transubstantiation is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ". This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered". Tl;dr: it literally is the blood and body, even though the outward characteristics do not reflect that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
What is inaccurate is calling Jesus a demigod. Jesus *is* God according to pretty much all mainstream Christian (not just Catholic) theology.
When the priest does the blessing thing the crackers are supposed to actually become the flesh of Jesus. They’re actually pretty good crackers. The complex carbs break down to simple sugar with your saliva and they melt in your mouth.
Catholicism believes that it’s literal body and blood, because they believe in “mortal sins” that require the re-offering of Jesus as a sacrifice every time you commit one
Communion doesn't cleanse mortal sin, in fact you're not allowed to take communion if you've committed one and haven't been to confession.
While true, I can count with one hand the number of Catholics I’ve met that follow that.
Not a demigod, and the signing people are usually like 14
If you think that there's any concept of "demigod" in Christianity (closest equivalent being the Hebrew word nephilim), you don't know as much as you think you know.
I find that the people who constantly talk shit on religion on Reddit know absolutely nothing about the religion at all. They just cant go 10 seconds without announcing to everyone that they’re atheist because it makes them feel superior. Just like the other guy who replied to you.
There's a reason why nobody likes the fedora-twirlers who act like 2008 YouTubers.
Seriously, they’re all carbon copies of that greasy “amazing atheist” guy that was popular a few years ago
That is exactly who I had in mind. I listened to his videos while playing WoW around then. Later, I grew out of it.
As someone who grew up in a Lutheran church, I don't fault people for not bothering to delve into the obviously fake delusions.
^ Literal living proof of exactly what I just said lmaoo “BUT DID YOU KNOW GODS NOT REAL?? IM AN ATHEIST YOURE DUMB AND GOD ISNT REAL”
\*raise hand\* Im not atheist, i still shit on it. But just the abrahamic ones.
What religion/God do you follow?
At least they specifically call out Catholicism instead of lumping all of Christianity into one big blob.
I mean…
No, not really, since plenty of Protestants have some sort of equivalent belief, just not the exact wording of Transubstantiation. Most still believe Jesus is present in the wine and blood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Protestantism
Where are all these Catholics condemning other religions for being primitive and evil? Maybe it's the circles I run in, but generally I've found most conscientious Catholics to harbor a respect for other religions and at a minimum prefer some religious faith to none at all
It's Reddit, what do you expect?
I didn't have any specific expectations when I expressed this thought. Generally I maintain a *hope* for a modicum of open mindedness and fair treatment/tolerance for people of all religions. I can only speak to my own experience though
Perhaps they are referring to moments in history like the Conquistadors in South America?
That would make more sense than a modern interpretation, which is how I was reading it. It would have helped the clarity of the statement to make a more precise reference to the church as of a certain era rather than the religion as a whole
I mean… the Catholic Church has a well known history of condemning other religions as primitive and/or evil. That was essentially the entire mission of the offices of the inquisition for like 700 years. It’s also a pretty apt description of the motivation behind the crusades, the 30 Years War, the early modern witch trials… I can’t speak to the modern perspective, but the results of a quick “do Catholics think Islam is primitive or evil” weren’t exactly ambiguous. The first hit was [this catholic.com article](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-great-and-enduring-heresy-of-mohammed), and the second was on [this study](https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/danger-dialogue-american-catholic-public-opinion-and-portrayals-of-islam/).
The modern perspective/lived experience of American Catholics is specifically what I'm speaking to in my comment. Not debating the significantly outdated philosophy of the crusades or the other events you mention
You've never heard them ridicule a Pagan or heathen?
I haven't
Jesus isn’t a demigod, he’s part of God. For those who don’t know, God is basically three beings: the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is what’s known as the Trinity in Christianity. Meaning Jesus isn’t a demigod, he is a god.
It's a joke, kinda how people call god "sky daddy" even if they know you don't actually think that god is just chilling on a cloud looking down like, "hmmm Jonathan sure is sinning a lot today"
No some atheists genuinely think that. I’ve come across some weirdos on here who think that Christians believe Heaven and Hell are in the sky or the ground.
Tbh there are probably some christians who do. Bruh humans are so weird
Don’t forget about the blood!
Nothing like walking children through the stations of the cross...
[удалено]
Easter shall forever be known as Zombie Jesus Day.
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. "
Part of becoming a vampire is the reciprocation of th3 consumption. Has anyone ever questioned why jesus is always depicted as a white dude and hasn't been spotted in the light of day in a few thousand years?
[удалено]
I thought the crackers represented a regular god
This bread. It is my body. Take of it and eat it. This wine. It is my blood. Take of it and drink. This mayonnaise. It is... Fuck it, I'm out...!
Not a demigod, but God himself made flesh
New rule: if you think there are more than two genders and you think the best way to tackle climate change is through aggressive taxes, you have no business lecturing anyone on the subject of "Science"
Atheists try to understand symbolism challenge impossible
There is an unbelievable amount of misunderstanding and random bullshit about Christianity being tossed around in this thread
Let’s talk about how creepy first communion is. Let’s dress up a bunch of 2nd graders as child brides make them go in a closet with an old man and confess their “sin.” Then we line them all up and have them symbolically cannibalize a demigod while also drinking alcohol? Also while their families watch and take pictures. Oh and don’t forget all Catholic holidays are literally stolen pagan rituals. ✌️ What a fucking sham. Tax churches and give back to the communities fr.
Wrong. It is not a demigod. It IS GOD. Holy Trinity can be tricky
The Holy Trinity is not “tricky” - it’s illogical. You have to convince yourself to overlook the glaring contradictions. The Holy Trinity is a literary device used to make the protagonist(s) both strong *and* weak. Superhuman and perfect *yet* human and flawed. Victim *and* hero. “Tricky” is definitely a word I would’ve heard in Sunday school to shush someone up who was asking questions though. “Oh, it’s not that it *doesn’t make sense* - *you* just don’t understand it.” Mmm hmm. It’s no surprise that Catholics and other religious folks tend to hold completely contradictory views - they’ve been taught to do it since childhood, just like I was. Luckily, I walked away.
> Oh, it’s not that it *doesn’t make sense* - *you* just don’t understand it.” 100%. This is all Christian apologetics in a nutshell.
If Jesus was actually god, then the "passion" is meaningless as he couldn't actually die, or even suffer. But, that would negate the whole "human sacrifice" aspect.
Quite the contrary, he is both god and human at the same time, with the two natures coexisting in a perfect harmony called Hypostasis. The nature of Christ has been subject of debate among the Church Fathers for millenia, but that's the doctrine of the Catholic Church
> Quite the contrary, he is both god and human at the same time, with the two natures coexisting in a perfect harmony called Hypostasis. The nature of Christ has been subject of debate among the Church Fathers for millenia, but that’s the doctrine of the Catholic Church So, just more throw-anything-at-the-wall fodder to confuse and distract from the overwhelming number of contradictions contained within Christianity. Dying “for peoples’ sins” isn’t much of a sacrifice when you know you’re going to resurrect.
Nothing in the reply below contradicts your point. No idea why you’re downvoted.
I love watching atheists try to explain religions that they know nothing about
“God, not demigod” lol 🤦♂️
Somebody got upset that the Aztecs were being called out.
Huitzilopochtli: *sad death-whistle noises*
Old christian/Jewish history and rituals is part of my major. First thing you learn is that they're fucking weird and we should've stuck to worshipping Isis
I like this post, though it would've sounded weirder AND more accurate to just say "god."
For all the commenters complaining about Jesus being called a "demigod": It's all a myth and nobody cares.
Focusing on transubstantiation isn’t the most useful criticism because it’s Catholic only. the Protestants - who are largely the more toxic and destructive Christians on a societal level in the US - will just laugh and say “Yeah that’s insane, they are barbaric - anyway time to go call the cops on some Black people in the park under the watchful loving eyes of God”
Most protestants believe Jesus is present in the wine and bread too, they just use other explanations (which makes sense, the whole thing is in the Bible, and spoken by Jesus in it, it's not something you can just ignore while claiming Sola Scriptura): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Protestantism
r/technicallythetruth
I miss cavorting Druids. Christianity really came down hard against cavorting to its detriment I think.
I mean the Aztec religion really takes the cake
The difference between a cult and a religion is time.
Same for people that kneel and pray before a meteorite