It's not a contradiction, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

See also: trinitarianism.

(/s)

if i was an omnipotent god, i would try to break logic at least once too

Even if Jesus is 100% man and 100% god simultaneously cause reasons, that still means his composition is 50% god and 50% man, which still fits the Demi god definition.

That's not a contradiction if they aren't related. Is god a species? I don't think so. It's like saying a cat is 100% cat and 100% cute. They're different things. He's not a human-god hybrid. He's a god who also happens to be human (at that time).

(Before people go assuming I'm arguing on the validity of all this, it's stupid. I'm an atheist. The whole thing doesn't really make sense. I'm just correcting a logical mistake.)

So they're just bad at math. Got it

So that means that jesus total is 200%, which can be still correctly rappresented as 100%, so he is still a demigod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Anyone who doesn't believe isn't a

🙄

Unitarians are weird. They don't believe in the trinity, but are Christian, but also merged with a non-Christian sect to form Unitarian Univalersalism.

But also, Catholics and most Protestants have a very different view on the Eucharist. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas many Protestant sects either see the Eucharist as symbolic of the body and blood and Christ's sacrifice, or something in between (Consubstantiation or Calvin's very complicated take).

It also helps explain modern Catholocism's stance that Protestants aren't allowed to take part in the Eucharist. It's not just a remnant of the old adversarial relationship between the sects, but different beliefs on what the sacrament is. They want everyone taking part in the ritual to understand it.

You eat wafers from a factory. The end.

Calling that dollar store rice paper fiasco a "cookie" is an insult to every actual cookie I've ever haf

I mean, Henry VIII spun off the Anglican church so he could properly call it a biscuit.

But ultimately, the statement being made is addressed to people who do literally believe that it is happening. If you don't believe that, then the statement doesn't apply to you, does it?

Furthermore, if they hold, as a requirement for eating the flesh and drinking the blood, that you must believe in its magic, then they are still people who seem to think that they are regularly practising literal cannibalism, and are not just okay with that, but are convinced that it would be morally wrong not to do so.

Nothing in catholicism can be taken at face value. Growing up Catholic, you learn obfuscation, and to work through abstractions of ideas rather than literal ones. Anyone considering the literal words in the bible was considered some kind of idiot zealot barbarian. Frankly we looked down on the rest of the christians who were limited to what was written on the paper. Only the priests could translate the text into what we actually truly believed, and thats what they were good for-- telling us what was meant rather than what was actually written.

Its a system that worked out great when the priests had charisma and could sell it, but when they lacked that personal touch it all fell apart pretty quickly. Being a catholic priest looks hard.

From the outside: it's all fucking crazy no matter how you spin it.

Yeah, that sounds like a lot of rationalization so they don't have to admit they are participating in ritual cannibalism.

Transubstatiation means that is is NOT symbolic or metaphoric, but that the "essence" is truly the body and blood of Christ, so it really is cannibalism - if you believe in religious magic. I don't, so I don't truly believe it's cannibalism, just a mid-service snack, but devout Catholics do believe in religious magic, so they do believe they are being Cannibals, even if they try to pretend that it's something else.

You were taught incorrectly then, I grew up catholic as well (also now atheist) and it was made very clear to me that it is not symbolic, it is an actual transformation. This is directly from the US conference of catholic bishops website: Is the Eucharist a symbol? The transformed bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ and are not merely symbols.

I remember very specifically that learning this official belief being one of the things that made me start questioning my religion. Like I can very clearly see that no transformation is happening so, it started making me question everything else they were telling me.

I believe that transubstantiation is supposed to mean that it quite literally becomes his flesh and blood