Not The Onion

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] whoxtank28@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

The ritualized cannibalism bit is transubstantiation, the belief that the blood(wine) and body(bread) of Jesus turn into his real blood and body during consecration in catholic mass.

But you could make a dig into it overall just beacuase the bread and wine are symbolic ritual cannibalism, very culty sounding when you look at it from another angle.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

As you said though, that's a Catholic tradition, not Christianity as a whole, and it isn't directly supported by the Bible. Its their unique interpretation of the act of communion. The actual text seems pretty metaphorical IMO.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] whoxtank28@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

Communion is not really just a catholic tradition, and it is not a wild interpretation to make when a dude says these 2 things sybolically represent my flesh and blood, calling the whole ritual symbolic cannibalism is not a stretch.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 0 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

I didn't say communion was only a catholic tradition. I said transubstantiation (the thing that you were talking about that I replied to) is only a catholic tradition. Calling transubstantiation cannibalism is one thing, but calling communion cannibalism when it is entirely symbolic is absolutely a stretch.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] whoxtank28@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Well considering nearly, if not all modern offshoots of Christianity are rooted in Catholocism, I don't really see why you they need to be separated so. The communions practiced in protestant offshoots are kind of bound to their origins no?

And once again, symbolically eating the flesh and blood of your deity can be referred to as symbolic ritual cannibalism, whether or not you believe that it is literally turning into the blood and flesh of your deity in your stomach.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Considering that religious offshoots typically occur because of disagreement in teachings and interpretation, no, they're not bound to their origins at all.

symbolic ritual cannibalism

Lmao, you're grasping at straws mate.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] whoxtank28@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You are right and wrong.

Martin Luther had a problem with the idea of transubstantiation, but also rejected memorialism (the idea that you were taking the bread and wine to memorialize Christ's sacrifice). Martin argued that the literal body and blood of Christ were "in, with, and under" the sacraments. His reforms denied the magical transformation of transubstantiation, but vehemently defended the literal presence of Christs blood and flesh in the sacraments.

In other words, symbolic ritual cannibalism. Maybe some modern protestant offshoots disagree, but this is definitely not contained to catholocism.

parent

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Sacrifice is a common theme in a lot of religions. The victim is offered to the diety, killed, and then consumed; the followers get whatever they were after, which could be atonement, a blessing, grace, etc. In Christianity theology, the man-god Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, ending the need to attain atonement with animal sacrifice. His instructions were to ritualistically eat bread (his body) and drink wine (his blood) as the atonement ritual. Different sects have differing opinions on where this is purely symbolic (most Protestants) or if through transubstantiation it literally becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus (Catholics). At the end of the day, you’re either symbolically or literally eating Jesus. By the doctrine though, it’s not pure cannibalism since Jesus is a god incarnate, but that’s what theologically makes it a step up over other forms of sacrifice; eat god, become like god.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Meh... "eat god, become like god" makes no sense.

The whole point of Christianity (at least in this dimension) is that Jesus' sacrifice is the ultimate mercyful gift fro God to undeserving humans. Participating in the communion is never a power trip to become like god, but a reminder that "you are still standing solely by his grace".

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

2 Peter 1:4 - “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”

John 17:21-23 - “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, circa 318–325 CE - “He became man so that we might become god.”

The concept is called theosis and is developed largely from those two verses and was further contemplated by early Catholics. Whether you become one with the godhead, like unto the godhead, or, such as in Mormonism, can literally become a god-being (though not the God) yourself varies by sect. Most agree that the communion does infer some sort of divine combining of one’s self with the god power. You can also see this concept in the idea of “invite Jesus into your heart”, or the gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow some part of god is dwelling in you and you are a part of god.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (2 children)

Interesting.

I only know the Protestant flavor of Christianity, and never, in many years, I got that kind of interpretation. It was more like "hey human, you are so doomed. Here you go: salvation. Now, in your unpayable gratitude, go and spread the word of what I'm doing, and do good stuff. Remember, without this gift, you were nothing, so, behave."

Kind of like tiktokers that give stuff to homeless, trying to become viral... but a bit more ominous...

Sure, glory is promised, but you gotta die first.

Also, this "god entering our heart" seen more like "having the unmeasurable honor of being noticed by this god, and (mind being blown) he cares about me". So the expected answer is eternal gratitude and a "debt of love".

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Yeah, the debate over the nature of how exactly sacrament works and what the purpose is not a singular belief in Christianity and like the Trinity is one of the things that has been debated within councils and philosophy endlessly. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the main two that hold it physically becomes the body and blood of Jesus. The big Protestant churches run the gamut of “body and blood is present but it’s still bread and wine” to “present in spirit” to “this is bread and wine; the act is symbolic”. That’s also why some can substitute grape juice or water and the act is still valid.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

So for catholics the wine has to be unadultered? Like with alcohol and all?