Here in WA the Catholic Church is treating it more seriously:
So, is there a point where one could barf post-communion and get some Jesus flesh, and do some cloning?
I was under the impression that it was more of a “it becomes the body and blood of Christ spiritually, not literally” thing, but I don’t have any personal experience with Catholicism (or Christianity really…).
IIRC there were a number of papal wars over whether the eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of christ or if it is metaphorical.
In anycase a lot of catholics both slaughtered people and were killed over it.
Good thing they’re fighting about such important things and not doing things like learning that clean water is less likely to cause disease.
Homosapien egoism, assuming a ‘great being’ has human sentiments.
I dunno man, claiming you’re perfect, then making imperfect stuff, then saying that imperfect stuff has to adhere to much stricter moral standards than the ones you do seems pretty fucked up and lame.
It depends on the denomination of Christianity.
For Catholics, it’s a literal transformation: the bread and wine literally and physically become the body and blood of Christ. However, their outward appearances, or “accidents”, remain those of bread and wine: that is, any scientific tests, current or future, will only show them to be bread and wine. But their “substance”, their essence, what they really are, is replaced with that of Christ’s body and blood. This doctrine is called transubstantiation.
I believe the Orthodox position is similar, but they are less precise about the details: the bread and wine literally become Christ’s body and blood, but speculating on exactly what that means and how it happens is regarded as pointless, if not impious.
The beliefs of other denominations span the spectrum from those similar or the same as the Catholic and Orthodox, through the ideas that it’s both bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood at the same time (Lutherans, maybe); that Christ is truly present but only spiritually, not physically (which I think is the Calvinist take); and that Christ was speaking metaphorically and the whole thing is purely symbolic.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
The good and loving God-fearing people of Indiana wanted it.
It’s religious followers that scare me worse than the possibility of a god, who would likely not be human-centric and might even actively hate humans.
Technically it shortens your stay in purgatory, but close enough.
That would be the Holy Spirit they’re always talking about.
It won’t do to use it like a miser
Hoard it all and we’ll all be none the wiser
And your hands stay clean!
Ah, maybe I kind of get it now…
Nope.
Seems like there’s a lot that has to do with semantic definitions that doesn’t really translate well into any “real world” concept. Maybe to accept that there’s an answer to this means you already accept the base religious concepts, and if you don’t then there’s no answer.
Well, finally, a religion willing to put its money where its mouth is.
If god can designate angels to keep you from stubbing your toe, surely he/she/it/they can designate a few more to swat virus aerosols away before they land on his body and blood.
Amazing how few people who generally mouth “Trust in god, he is in control” really mean it when the fop hits the air impeller.
A church or cathedral or such depending on which god you select is going to be the safest place on eerth to be. Unless this stuff is all jive of course.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
