Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: SusanDoris on March 16, 2017, 01:50:59 PM
-
In a post the other day, Rhiannon mentioned that she thought it would not be a good thing to ridicule the eucharist. This reminded me of a topic elsewhere which was on the subject of at what age should children take communion. Well, apart from quietly exploding at the whole idea of children being initiated into a symbolic form of cannibalism, I did not join that discussion as I would not have been able to refrain from pointing out that such an idea is not one that has been thought through, let alone critically thought through.
This ritual no doubt has some deep meaning for some people, although how the idea that one has to simulate eating the flesh and blood of a 2,000-year-dead person beggars belief --- and when I was young I was a communicant in the CofE – well, the mind boggles! I give myself the credit for questioning the ritual at the time, but did not know enough to counter the things I was told about how serious it was.
If one thinks things through, it is hard to imagine how adults can suspend their disbelief sufficiently, so how in any way can it be correct to tell children and young people that it is the body and blood of Christ They are ingesting? Does this ritual inculcate a sense of servility and inferiority that will reduce self-esteem?
I would be interested in your views here.
-
Hang on - 'Eucharist' IS communion - we just use an angliscised version of the word. The only issue is the substance of the sacrament, transubstantiation or symbolic. In my own tradition, children are welcome to partake with the permission of their parents, if they have some understanding of the act and the elements. As for who can take it? Well, usually we ask that those who partake are baptised; but one phrase sometimes used is "All are welcome. This is not the table of any one church. It is the table of our Lord Jesus Christ."
-
I'm not sure what's wrong with a 'symbolic form of cannibalism', to quote Susan's phrase. Popular culture is full of stories about serial killers and rape and God knows what, and fairy stories are notoriously gruesome. Grimm's tales contain mutilation, incest, cannibalism, and infanticide. There are lots of interesting explanations as to why we seem to like such primitive images, but anyway, we do.
I suppose that the literal sense of the eucharist, that one is literally eating flesh and blood, is hard to swallow (!). As to what these things mean, I suppose it's to do with incorporation, merging, taking in the divine, and so on.
-
Anchorman
Thank you for your reply. May I ask what taking communion does for you? Does it change or enhance your beliefs?
wigginhall
thank you for your reply. If adults can rationalise the ritual for themselves, that is their right of course, but how much do you think those adults should explain to children? Or should the children just take the wafer or bread and wine for fun?
-
Anchorman
Thank you for your reply. May I ask what taking communion does for you? Does it change or enhance your beliefs?
wigginhall
thank you for your reply. If adults can rationalise the ritual for themselves, that is their right of course, but how much do you think those adults should explain to children? Or should the children just take the wafer or bread and wine for fun?
I'm not sure about 'rationalize'. If I enjoy a horror film full of blood and gore, I don't need a rational explanation, do I? And kids are notorious for liking violent stories, not for fun really. I think the meanings are so unconscious that we don't know what they are. Why do I like Nightmare on Elm St? Well, you could argue that I am pleased about seeing my own destructive energy being neutralized, but that's a guess. The point is you don't need an explanation.
-
I'm not sure about 'rationalize'. If I enjoy a horror film full of blood and gore, I don't need a rational explanation, do I? And kids are notorious for liking violent stories, not for fun really. I think the meanings are so unconscious that we don't know what they are. Why do I like Nightmare on Elm St? Well, you could argue that I am pleased about seeing my own destructive energy being neutralized, but that's a guess. The point is you don't need an explanation.
Horror films etc are known to be 100% fiction, and do not involve millions of people in a belief involving a God which needs worship, and which is believed to affect the lives of humans!
-
Horror films etc are known to be 100% fiction, and do not involve millions of people in a belief involving a God which needs worship, and which is believed to affect the lives of humans!
You seem to be moving the goalposts now. I thought you were objecting to stories about cannibalism? Now you seem to objecting to stories about God. Well, OK, there are stories about cannibalism which seem to be about God, I am just saying that cannibalism is OK as a theme in stories. If you want to start arguing about God, then the thread has just changed.
-
Horror films etc are known to be 100% fiction, and do not involve millions of people in a belief involving a God which needs worship, and which is believed to affect the lives of humans!
SusanDoris
I have given this topic some considerable thought and as a result I have concluded this ;
nucking futters ,the lot of em
-
As someone who had their First Communion at the grand old age of 7, you don't really feel like it's cannibalism, symbolic or otherwise. You know it's a weird wee wafer thing that you are somehow supposed to treat with respect when eating it which leads to it getting stuck to the roof of your mouth and then scraped off with your tongue.
RC stuff is so weird that even at 7, you are sort of inured to this stuff. It's all magical hyper reality. After all we have crucifixes everywhere and every church will have a version of the Stations of the Cross with whippings, and crowns of thorns, and nailings. And even as young as four you will happily be singing along to the cheery little ditty, By the blood that flowed from thee - link to lyrics below. As a child that loved Dr Who and Greek mythology, it was all jolly stuff. At least that's what I told the psychiatrist who tried to test me after the fifth murder. I ate their liver with some chips (salt and vinegar)and half bottle of Buckie.
http://www.chantcd.com/lyrics/blood_flowed_from_thee.htm
-
Anchorman Thank you for your reply. May I ask what taking communion does for you? Does it change or enhance your beliefs? wigginhall thank you for your reply. If adults can rationalise the ritual for themselves, that is their right of course, but how much do you think those adults should explain to children? Or should the children just take the wafer or bread and wine for fun?
- No-one, in my experience, takes the elements 'for fun', Susan. In the Kirk, there aren't that many occasions when we partake - depending on the congregation, three or four times a year, usually. That makes it into a very solemn, yet joyful, experience. And I can assure you that children would need to know at least something about the sacrament, and usually the minister of the congregation would set the standard as to what that 'something' was, before they partook. It is never anything we approach lightly -even though we don't accept transubstantiation as a doctrine. The symbolism of the elements of bread and wine, body broken, blood shed, are too important for that!
-
As someone who had their First Communion at the grand old age of 7, you don't really feel like it's cannibalism, symbolic or otherwise. You know it's a weird wee wafer thing that you are somehow supposed to treat with respect when eating it which leads to it getting stuck to the roof of your mouth and then scraped off with your tongue.
RC stuff is so weird that even at 7, you are sort of inured to this stuff. It's all magical hyper reality. After all we have crucifixes everywhere and every church will have a version of the Stations of the Cross with whippings, and crowns of thorns, and nailings. And even as young as four you will happily be singing along to the cheery little ditty, By the blood that flowed from thee - link to lyrics below. As a child that lived Dr Who and Greek mythology, it was all jolly stuff. At least that's what I told the psychiatrist who tried to test me after the fifth murder. I ate their liver with some chips and half bottle of Buckie.
http://www.chantcd.com/lyrics/blood_flowed_from_thee.htm
I was trying to think about it anthropologically, not very well, since I'm not an anthropologist. But I am guessing that many cultures around the world have strange, or weird, or gruesome rituals and symbols. I suppose there is a view that we should have grown out of that, because we are civilized and rational, but I don't really believe that. Jung wrote some interesting stuff about Germany, where he said that modern man was extremely primitive, but it lurked beneath the surface. Maybe.
-
I was trying to think about it anthropologically, not very well, since I'm not an anthropologist. But I am guessing that many cultures around the world have strange, or weird, or gruesome rituals and symbols. I suppose there is a view that we should have grown out of that, because we are civilized and rational, but I don't really believe that. Jung wrote some interesting stuff about Germany, where he said that modern man was extremely primitive, but it lurked beneath the surface. Maybe.
There's also the whole weird way we do Halloween in Scotland particularly the West Coast. As Anchorman and I have discussed previously,it was a very big thing way before the American version which is merely a derivation of the Scottish stuff reimported. Monsters, death and the shredding of the veil to the spirit world are great when you are a child. I've posted previously links to the idea of galoshans which is incredibly localised but guising is the wider term.
http://galoshans.com
-
You seem to be moving the goalposts now. I thought you were objecting to stories about cannibalism? Now you seem to objecting to stories about God. Well, OK, there are stories about cannibalism which seem to be about God, I am just saying that cannibalism is OK as a theme in stories. If you want to start arguing about God, then the thread has just changed.
I did not post any goal posts or specific limits to the topic. I posted an OP which I hope is then open to discussion on whatever point anyone wishes to make.
-
And, of course, when you are used to recitations of Tam o'Shanter with such lovely trenchant lines as:
'Three lawyers' tongues, turn'd inside out,
Wi' lies seam'd like a beggar's clout;
Three priests' hearts, rotten black as muck,
Lay stinking, vile in every neuk.'
Then a bit of the old symbolic cannibalism is perfectly fine
-
My impression of kids and young people, which is admittedly limited, is that they are very weird and wonderful, and they love gore and bizarre stuff. I suppose then the argument is that they should not be told stories about God as factually based? Oh well, I don't know.
-
The symbolism of the elements of bread and wine, body broken, blood shed, are too important for that!
I wonder if that was really what bread and wine symbolised. If Jesus was speaking in Hebrew/Armaic he might have used the words 'Netsach' which had a variety of meanings - grape juice, blood, strength, power, firmness, confidence, completeness, truth and 'Lachum' - food, flesh, body, nourishment, sustenance. Perhaps it symbolises taking in spiritual sustenance and life empowerment and was a ritualistic memory aid.
-
As someone who had their First Communion at the grand old age of 7, you don't really feel like it's cannibalism, symbolic or otherwise. You know it's a weird wee wafer thing that you are somehow supposed to treat with respect when eating it which leads to it getting stuck to the roof of your mouth and then scraped off with your tongue.
RC stuff is so weird that even at 7, you are sort of inured to this stuff. It's all magical hyper reality. After all we have crucifixes everywhere and every church will have a version of the Stations of the Cross with whippings, and crowns of thorns, and nailings. And even as young as four you will happily be singing along to the cheery little ditty, By the blood that flowed from thee - link to lyrics below. As a child that loved Dr Who and Greek mythology, it was all jolly stuff. At least that's what I told the psychiatrist who tried to test me after the fifth murder. I ate their liver with some chips (salt and vinegar)and half bottle of Buckie.
http://www.chantcd.com/lyrics/blood_flowed_from_thee.htm
Thank you, NS. Super post!! In my opinion, once one has seen right through and then stepped away from such rituals, there's ddefinitely no going back.
-
Thank you, NS. Super post!! In my opinion, once one has seen right through and then stepped away from such rituals, there's ddefinitely no going back.
I forgot to mention the Sacred Heart pictures of Jesus when he is depicted with his heart on his toga , generally with rays coming out of it, as if it's gone nuclear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart
-
- No-one, in my experience, takes the elements 'for fun', Susan. In the Kirk, there aren't that many occasions when we partake - depending on the congregation, three or four times a year, usually. That makes it into a very solemn, yet joyful, experience. And I can assure you that children would need to know at least something about the sacrament, and usually the minister of the congregation would set the standard as to what that 'something' was, before they partook. It is never anything we approach lightly -even though we don't accept transubstantiation as a doctrine. The symbolism of the elements of bread and wine, body broken, blood shed, are too important for that!
Thank you. That is interesting that it is not a weekly thing as it used to be, and I think still is, in the CofE.
another question if I may - do you think your faith would change if your church decided to drop the occasional taking of communion?
-
I wonder if that was really what bread and wine symbolised. If Jesus was speaking in Hebrew/Armaic he might have used the words 'Netsach' which had a variety of meanings - grape juice, blood, strength, power, firmness, confidence, completeness, truth and 'Lachum' - food, flesh, body, nourishment, sustenance. Perhaps it symbolises taking in spiritual sustenance and life empowerment and was a ritualistic memory aid.
From my memory, the Fospels, written in Koine Greek, rather than Hebrew, are a bit less complicated than either Hebrew or Aramaic.
-
Thank you. That is interesting that it is not a weekly thing as it used to be, and I think still is, in the CofE.
another question if I may - do you think your faith would change if your church decided to drop the occasional taking of communion?
-
Probably not, Susan, since the act, for us, is symbolic.
In partaking, we are reminded - if a reminder were really necessary, of the death and reseurrection.
We are commanded to "do this in memory of Me" as Jesus put it - so we obey as a rememberence of Calvary and the Empty tomb.
I realise that you accept neither of these, but they remain the core of ourr faith.
-
It is a very moving experience.Something we do together, remembering Christ's sacrifice. We feel we are at one with Jesus at the time. Nothing gory about it for goodness sakes!
-
It is a very moving experience.Something we do together, remembering Christ's sacrifice. We feel we are at one with Jesus at the time. Nothing gory about it for goodness sakes!
-
Exactly.
I've always been moved when I partake of the elements - particularly when I do so with other believers who are not of my denomination.
Not only a memorial of sacrificial love, it is a commemoration of Christian unity.
-
Precisely but not something easily understood by non-believers so I don't get offended, just think:'No-oneis telling you to do it',
-
In the Orthodox Church all who have been baptised and chrismated (or confirmed, that is they have received the Holy Spirit via the annointing of sacred oil) into the Orthodox Church, including babies. We believe that the bread and wine have been transformed into the body and blood of our Lord and we receive holy communion as often as ones conscience allows. To the Orthodox it's a no brainer. Why would we or our children not want to receive such a grace?
-
It is a very moving experience.Something we do together, remembering Christ's sacrifice. We feel we are at one with Jesus at the time. Nothing gory about it for goodness sakes!
The actual ritual is not in any way gory of course, and over the years hygiene improved - I never did like the idea of putting my lips to the same part of the cup that everyone else was using! The Vicar started dabbing a bit at the cup with a cloth and turning the cup slightly for the next person, but that was all a long time ago as far as I'm concerned.
The emotional feeling involved is induced by the person's individual ideas about the process and inculcated beliefs as well as by being in the company of others with similar beliefs, so it is the mind that is at work, not the wafer and sip of wine.
Have you ever tried to step back and consider the service and the ritual from an impersonal, objective point of view, I wonder?
-
The ritual itself is important. The whole Eucharist is a prayer of thanksgiving. What one prays is what one believes that is, lex orandi lex credendi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_orandi,_lex_credendi
-
The actual ritual is not in any way gory of course, and over the years hygiene improved - I never did like the idea of putting my lips to the same part of the cup that everyone else was using! The Vicar started dabbing a bit at the cup with a cloth and turning the cup slightly for the next person, but that was all a long time ago as far as I'm concerned.
The emotional feeling involved is induced by the person's individual ideas about the process and inculcated beliefs as well as by being in the company of others with similar beliefs, so it is the mind that is at work, not the wafer and sip of wine.
Have you ever tried to step back and consider the service and the ritual from an impersonal, objective point of view, I wonder?
]
alcohol kills germs. The wine used is low in alcohol but there is still some. In some places the chalice is wiped each time, in other churches small vials are used for each communicant. Never heard of anyone being infected (herpes etc.), from communion chalice.
-
In the Orthodox Church all who have been baptised and chrismated (or confirmed, that is they have received the Holy Spirit via the annointing of sacred oil) into the Orthodox Church, including babies. We believe that the bread and wine have been transformed into the body and blood of our Lord and we receive holy communion as often as ones conscience allows. To the Orthodox it's a no brainer. Why would we or our children not want to receive such a grace?
But that is a crazy lie which is easily confirmed!
-
But that is a crazy lie which is easily confirmed!
Only in your opinion.
-
The ritual itself is important. The whole Eucharist is a prayer of thanksgiving. What one prays is what one believes that is, lex orandi lex credendi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_orandi,_lex_credendi
Humm... So, if, as the article says, "it is prayer which leads to belief", you could actually make yourself believe anything, if you used the right prayers...?
I guess it avoids all that tiresome thinking about stuff, eh?
-
Humm... So, if, as the article says, "it is prayer which leads to belief", you could actually make yourself believe anything, if you used the right prayers...?
I guess it avoids all that tiresome thinking about stuff, eh?
I doesn't quite go like that. It goes both ways. Faith comes first but prayer confirms it. Right praise (orthodoxy) also leads to right belief. That is why in the East we do not change our liturgies and which is why so many western Christians looked on with horror when Rome changed its whole liturgies in the sixties after Vatican II.
-
I doesn't quite go like that. It goes both ways. Faith comes first but prayer confirms it. Right praise (orthodoxy) also leads to right belief.
Sounds like some sort of weird self-hypnosis.
"Right" belief in what sense? The dogmas of your particular corner of Christianity? The idea that such a process could lead to objective "true for everyone" knowledge would be a rather silly claim...
-
Sounds like some sort of weird self-hypnosis.
"Right" belief in what sense? The dogmas of your particular corner of Christianity? The idea that such a process could lead to objective "true for everyone" knowledge would be a rather silly claim...
Right belief, as in the Apostolic faith. Our actions represents our belief. This goes for the prayer of the Church but not only that, it confirms/strengthens it. Fiddle with it, change it, and eventually you do not have the same faith. That is why the first thing Luther did, for instance, is stop using the ancient and venerable Roman Canon.
-
Right belief, as in the Apostolic faith. Our actions represents our belief. This goes for the prayer of the Church but not only that, it confirms/strengthens it. Fiddle with it, change it, and eventually you do not have the same faith. That is why the first thing Luther did, for instance, is stop using the ancient and venerable Roman Canon.
So the dogmas of your particular corner of Christianity, then (what you think, the apostles believed). Nothing objectively true for everyone.
-
Only in your opinion.
No, it is actually possible to tell the difference between bread and wine and flesh and blood: it would taste different, for a start.
-
] alcohol kills germs. The wine used is low in alcohol but there is still some. In some places the chalice is wiped each time, in other churches small vials are used for each communicant. Never heard of anyone being infected (herpes etc.), from communion chalice.
- From a history geek POV, alchohol was a far more useful tool in the arsenal of ancient medicines than we give it credit. I agree - as a substitute for water, it was a great killer of germs - water being pretty impure on the whole. As for vessels? I've actually taken part in an impromptu communion on a beach - and the elements were distributed in a paper cup and plate - and the time was simply beautiful, as the sun glimmered off the waters on the Sound of Mull. In my own congregation, we've accumulated silverware over the centuries - pretty good stuff bearing the arms of the Boswell family, who were once benefactors to the Kirk. We've been trying to sell them, but various non-church bodies are throwing a spanner in the works. Our main concession to history is that we sometimes use a battered pewter cup - not really very appealing to look at - but used by the covenanting minister, Alexander Peden, in the 1670's, when the government tried to impose episcopacy onto the Kirk and worshippers took to the hills and glens, in illegal services of communion ('conventicles') sometimes losing their lives in the process at the hands of government dragoons.
-
No, it is actually possible to tell the difference between bread and wine and flesh and blood: it would taste different, for a start.
ah but that's just an accident
"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."
-
Only in your opinion.
can you see me shaking my head in complete astonishment?
-
ah but that's just an accident
"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."
fortunately, I very much hope so anyway, more people do actually have a real understanding of the difference!
-
Only in your opinion.
You have to be really gullible to believe it is anymore than symbolism.
-
I doesn't quite go like that. It goes both ways. Faith comes first but prayer confirms it. Right praise (orthodoxy) also leads to right belief. That is why in the East we do not change our liturgies and which is why so many western Christians looked on with horror when Rome changed its whole liturgies in the sixties after Vatican II.
Can I just add to Paul's posts that it was not our church who burned people alive over this issue?
-
You have to be really gullible to believe it is anymore than symbolism.
I'll second that Floo, it's the 21st century and we've still got people taken in hook line and sinker with this nonsense? Sad.
ippy
-
I think there are quite a few who are not taken in completely, give due credit to scientists, the TofEand so on, go to family functionssuch as weddings, christenings and funerals, and, if they really allowed themselves to follow their logic through, know that the God idea is a non-starter, but choose not to bother to think about that. That applies to quite a few who know me!!
-
The actual ritual is not in any way gory of course, and over the years hygiene improved - I never did like the idea of putting my lips to the same part of the cup that everyone else was using!
A similar thing puts me off Atheism namely the proximity of the noses of so many to a certain scientist's posterior. That's not to be taken literally but as a metaphor of course.
-
A similar thing puts me off Atheism namely the proximity of the noses of so many to a certain scientist's posterior. That's not to be taken literally but as a metaphor of course.
that would be an ad anusum
-
that would be an ad anusum
It's A. Hole-y mystery.
-
Sam Harris does a good one on you tube, he compares the Eucharist with eating a few cream crackers and expecting to see Elvis.
ippy
-
Sam Harris does a good one on you tube, he compares the Eucharist with eating a few cream crackers and expecting to see Elvis.
ippy
Laugh? I couldn't start.
-
Laugh? I couldn't start.
Maybe Sam should be on the stage?
-
Sam Harris does a good one on you tube, he compares the Eucharist with eating a few cream crackers and expecting to see Elvis.
ippy
That really is hurtful to people who like going to communion & believe it has some significance tho neverheard of anyone expecting tosee someone. I'd have thought better of someone with Sam Harris's intellect.
-
That really is hurtful to people who like going to communion & believe it has some significance tho neverheard of anyone expecting tosee someone. I'd have thought better of someone with Sam Harris's intellect.
If someone is hurt by something like that, then they have a problem, not Sam Harris.
-
I don't say they'd make a song and dance about it Susan, theyd probably swallow it, but it is unkind.I don't care about communion but know people who od in different ways, that remark was stupid and insensitive.
-
I don't say they'd make a song and dance about it Susan, theyd probably swallow it, but it is unkind.I don't care about communion but know people who od in different ways, that remark was stupid and insensitive.
Stupid? Why? If you are talking about the Sam Harris comment, ? The analogy works, I think. Whether communicants believe in transubstantiation or see it as a symbol, they are told it is 'the body and blood of Christ'. I was a communicant in the CofE for many years - I just wish I had had the irrationality of it pointed out to me at an earlier stage in my life.
-
Maybe Sam should be on the stage?
Is that a gun in his pocket or is he just pleased to see us?
-
If someone is hurt by something like that, then they have a problem, not Sam Harris.
Yes what's a bit of shit stirring between friends?
-
Stupid? Why? If you are talking about the Sam Harris comment, ? The analogy works, I think. Whether communicants believe in transubstantiation or see it as a symbol, they are told it is 'the body and blood of Christ'. I was a communicant in the CofE for many years - I just wish I had had the irrationality of it pointed out to me at an earlier stage in my life.
It is stupid and immature to talk insensitively about things which are dear to others, especially when the person saying it isn't bothered by it. Your opinions changed over time, that's fine& happens to lot of us but it didn't killyou when you were a communicant.
There's a lot more to life than religion &strikes me that many with no religious beliefs are more obsessed with it and its details than those who do have faith. Most people with religious beliefs are quite moderate too.
-
Sam Harris does a good one on you tube, he compares the Eucharist with eating a few cream crackers and expecting to see Elvis.
ippy
That means nothing to me, we don't use cream crackers.
-
HWB: Different tradition, I know - but I've taken part in communions where the bread is white, brown, leavened, unleavened, crackers, wafer - whatever. Equally I have partaken of 'wine' which is alcoholic, or non-alcoholic (as we had several recovering alcoholics with us and wanted them included in the sacrament), or even, on a very memorable occasion when commemorating an illegal conventicle at Airdsmoss, whisky. I enjoyed that.... Seriously, though, since my tradition rejects transubstantiation, the actual ingredients of the elements don't matter. The nature of the act itself in whatever setting, however, is always sacred.
-
That means nothing to me, we don't use cream crackers.
Quite and you didn't expect to 'see' Elvis or anyone else, did you. That was a ridiculous thing to suggest.
Anchorman, not only are you in communion with Christ you are in communion with everyone else who is receiving communion and that is a sacred moment which is quite beautiful.
-
I never really thrill to Harris's writing, but I doubt if people are going to be hurt by such wild comparisons, are they?
-
I don't see anything particularly interesting in Harris's comment, nor do I see why that it might offend some is important. I know people who will get offended if you disagree with their favourite Doctor Who.
-
I don't know anyone who would be hurt or offendedby criticism of Dr Who but if I did, I'd be careful what I said.
I give up! Obviously didn't get my point across but it's a question of empathy. Beginning to udnerstand how Ippy feels.
-
I don't know anyone who would be hurt or offendedby criticism of Dr Who but if I did, I'd be careful what I said.
I give up! Obviously didn't get my point across but it's a question of empathy. Beginning to udnerstand how Ippy feels.
But you surely don't believe that anything anyone cares about needs to be treated with some form of undefined respect simply because it is important to them?
-
Yes I do.
-
Yes I do.
so, if someone believes in FGM and it might upset them, then I shouldn't mention it?
-
One of the reasons that religious beliefs have held such power for so long is that (a) not enough people have been able to get together to point out the total lack of evidence for any god/god/s, (b) the total lack of logic for any such god, and (c) too many -people have tip-toed around the subject instead of facing believers more strongly to request them to make a valid case for the gods/spirits they believe exist.
Obviously, in everyday life I do not daily challenge every believer I know, but simply live as positively as I do. Those who know me know that I am an atheist. However, on a message board like this the subject can be discussed by all.
-
Elvis and cream crackers is a poor analogy with the eucharist, because as far as I know, Elvis didn't ask people to commemorate him via eating cream crackers, and there are no stories that he did. Second, Elvis followers don't, again as far as I know, get together to eat cream crackers in his memory. Third, eating cream crackers doesn't really connect with a historic tradition, whereas the eucharist does, for example, with the Passover meal.
Still, I suppose it's not meant to be that kind of analogy, but rather, 'look how stupid X is, if I compare it with something stupid'.
-
Maybe Sam should be on the stage?
If you haven't already seen it it's worth a watch NS, I've simplified my description of his words and it is worth a look and listen to the words coming from the man himself.
ippy
-
If you haven't already seen it it's worth a watch NS, I've simplified my description of his words and it is worth a look and listen to the words coming from the man himself.
ippy
Perhaps you could post a link?
I have to say I was disappointed Vlad went for an attempt to be 'original' in his reply when I had set him up for his traditional 'much loved' line.
-
so, if someone believes in FGM and it might upset them, then I shouldn't mention it?
What does FGM have to do with the eucharist? You are barrel scraping, deliberately too and have no respect.
I'm off.
-
What does FGM have to do with the eucharist? You are barrel scraping, deliberately too and have no respect.
I'm off.
Your principle was that things that people hold deeply then you should show respect for. I used the FGM example because if you don't think it applies for that, then you gave some other evaluation about what should be respected.
-
What does FGM have to do with the eucharist? You are barrel scraping, deliberately too and have no respect.
I'm off.
For what do you think NS has 'no respect'? do you think religious beliefs should be respected? If so,
why is that?
-
For what do you think NS has 'no respect'? do you think religious beliefs should be respected? If so,
why is that?
Not sure it is Robinson's position that 'religious beliefs' need to be respected, as she stated it should be extended to people's opinions on the best Doctor Who. I don't really know what the position is, which is what I have been seeking to clarify.
-
Perhaps you could post a link?
I have to say I was disappointed Vlad went for an attempt to be 'original' in his reply when I had set him up for his traditional 'much loved' line.
N S, go to YouTube and enter, Sam Harris- "The Elvis Analogy".
Regards ippy
-
N S, go to YouTube and enter, Sam Harris- "The Elvis Analogy".
Regards ippy
I watched one and there seemed to be no cream crackers in it, and I like cream crackers.
-
I watched one and there seemed to be no cream crackers in it, and I like cream crackers.
It's a good analogy, nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned, it shut down that Walpe bloke rather successfully.
ippy
-
It's a good analogy, nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned, it shut down that Walpe bloke rather successfully.
ippy
I'm not saying it isn't but would say to others that if you think it was a direct analogy about communion, it isn't and it might be worth having a look and seeing what you think. Link below. I think it's unfortunate to not see the reply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_i3RxGGTk
-
I'm not saying it isn't but would say to others that if you think it was a direct analogy about communion, it isn't and it might be worth having a look and seeing what you think. Link below. I think it's unfortunate to not see the reply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_i3RxGGTk
You N S, it seems to me unless an idea whatever the idea happens to be, unless described when trying to convey this whatever the idea may be; if it's not conveyed using your innermost thoughts about how to convey each idea, there has to be something about the conveyance of whatever idea it is by another, not your goodself, that isn't quite correct, in your estimation, you give me the impression that you would take even the missing of a dot over an i would, it seems to me, be deeply significant for you.
I'm sure there's a load of material in the above for you to dissect, please feel free to do so.
ippy
-
Not sure it is Robinson's position that 'religious beliefs' need to be respected, as she stated it should be extended to people's opinions on the best Doctor Who. I don't really know what the position is, which is what I have been seeking to clarify.
I'm not sure that she is saying that. She used the word 'empathy' which is a feeling towards a person not towards a belief or opinion. You can still respect the person who derives benefit from a religious ritual like the Eucharist without respecting the source of that benefit.
-
I'm not sure that she is saying that. She used the word 'empathy' which is a feeling towards a person not towards a belief or opinion. You can still respect the person who derives benefit from a religious ritual like the Eucharist without respecting the source of that benefit.
But the idea of respect the person then has to extend to the idea if the discussion or disparagement of the idea is what is to be stopped by the 'empathy'. The whole of this discussion is about disoragement of ideas, if it is to be stopped on the basis that it might offend the people who hold that idea seriously, then the principle extends from the best Doctor Who to FGM.
It's rather similar to the rule we have on the board where we (try to) stop personal insult but allow free debate of ideas. If you extend the protection from the person to the idea because it offends the person, then it ends up protecting the idea and giving it respect that I think is unwarranted.
-
In a post the other day, Rhiannon mentioned that she thought it would not be a good thing to ridicule the eucharist. This reminded me of a topic elsewhere which was on the subject of at what age should children take communion. Well, apart from quietly exploding at the whole idea of children being initiated into a symbolic form of cannibalism, I did not join that discussion as I would not have been able to refrain from pointing out that such an idea is not one that has been thought through, let alone critically thought through.
Rather belies your belief that you do not believe in a god.
Why explode at all if it has no reality to it?
Cannibalism.... Symbolic or otherwise could not be further from the truth.
I believe if you actually did not believe in God or the truth about the sacrifice of Christ then there would be no emotions at all.
Were you raised with faith? Did you ever take communion? But which would be worse. Telling a child about Jesus and taking communion or sharing your disbelief and them going to where unbelievers not saved could go after death.
I think the latter does far more harm if true. But if you do not believe why pretend one can harm and the other cannot?
This ritual no doubt has some deep meaning for some people, although how the idea that one has to simulate eating the flesh and blood of a 2,000-year-dead person beggars belief --- and when I was young I was a communicant in the CofE – well, the mind boggles! I give myself the credit for questioning the ritual at the time, but did not know enough to counter the things I was told about how serious it was.
Do you eat your steak well done or medium rare etc. Has it done you any harm?
If you believe all flesh is the same that we are all animals then doesn't that mean you are committing Cannabilism by eating animal flesh at all?
You see how unreal and unconnected your beliefs really are. How double standards appear in your thinking.
If humans are the same as animals in that they are animals too. ( Which I do not believe) Then you like all meat eater have committed cannabilism .
If one thinks things through, it is hard to imagine how adults can suspend their disbelief sufficiently, so how in any way can it be correct to tell children and young people that it is the body and blood of Christ They are ingesting? Does this ritual inculcate a sense of servility and inferiority that will reduce self-esteem?
I would be interested in your views here.
Does the above apply to you or any atheist when eating animal flesh?
Is it correct to feed meat to our children if we allow those thoughts that we are all animals?
You are not really interested in views. You were hoping to somehow make it about something human in origin like your own beliefs.
But when tested you do far worse if your beliefs are correct. You actually commit cannibalism by eating animal flesh when calling all humans animals. Would be best you left things like communion alone as it is not about cannibalism it is about the sacrifice of human flesh for human flesh.
We do not eat the flesh or drink blood. It is a mystical thing about life coming from the sacrifice of Christ and deliverance.
Now I believe the matter is settled.
-
www.dictionary.com/browse/cannibalism
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cannibal
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cannibal
cannibal meaning, definition, what is cannibal:
a person who eats human flesh, or an animal that eats the flesh of animals of its own type
-
www.dictionary.com/browse/cannibalism
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cannibal
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cannibal
cannibal meaning, definition, what is cannibal:
a person who eats human flesh, or an animal that eats the flesh of animals of its own type
NAH! you say we are all animals the dictionary does not think we are all animals.
noun
1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2.
any such living thing other than a human being.
3.
a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
human being
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
I have said numerous times we are not animals but you all insist we are. But when it shows up that you are the cannibals in that instance then you want to change the rules and what you have said.
So now we have it... HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT ANIMALS otherwise you are all Cannibals...
-
Sassy
Normally speaking, I do not read your posts, let alone respond to them. I did consider responding to yours to me above, but it is so lacking in any facts or sense that I am not going to do so. I will just point out that children should be given INFORMATION about as much of life as possible, but NOT told such things as taking communion are rational nor that this is symbolic of eating flesh and blood, particularly of a person dead for two thousand years.
As for your ridiculous point about eating steak, well, that is not human flesh, nor is it symbolic of some bizarre religious ritual.
-
But the idea of respect the person then has to extend to the idea if the discussion or disparagement of the idea is what is to be stopped by the 'empathy'. The whole of this discussion is about disoragement of ideas, if it is to be stopped on the basis that it might offend the people who hold that idea seriously, then the principle extends from the best Doctor Who to FGM.
It's rather similar to the rule we have on the board where we (try to) stop personal insult but allow free debate of ideas. If you extend the protection from the person to the idea because it offends the person, then it ends up protecting the idea and giving it respect that I think is unwarranted.
I don't think it follows that respect of a person stops discussion of their ideas. Disparagement of a person or personal insult, on the other hand, is just ad hominem by another name and is usually the result of an intention to offend. If that person takes offence, the discussion could just as well stop by that person leaving you with nobody to discuss with.
-
I don't think it follows that respect of a person stops discussion of their ideas. Disparagement of a person or personal insult, on the other hand, is just ad hominem by another name and is usually the result of an intention to offend. If that person takes offence, the discussion could just as well stop by that person leaving you with nobody to discuss with.
Except disparaging the idea is what was being argued against because people would be offended. No one has argued for disparagement of the person but the ability to disparage the idea and if someone takes offence at that then they the one shutting down discussion of the idea.
-
It's a good analogy, nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned, it shut down that Walpe bloke rather successfully.
ippy
FYI
Our communion involves a few crumbs of bread, blessed by by the priest, which we swallow with a spoonful of good quality wine.
What you, or Susie, may think about our rituals, does not bother us.
Love and kisses to Iplova
HWB
-
FYI
Our communion involves a few crumbs of bread, blessed by by the priest, which we swallow with a spoonful of good quality wine.
What you, or Susie, may think about our rituals, does not bother us.
Love and kisses to Iplova
HWB
. Having tried to get drunk on RC communion wine, they were skimping. Buckfast Lite
-
FYI
Our communion involves a few crumbs of bread, blessed by by the priest, which we swallow with a spoonful of good quality wine.
What you, or Susie, may think about our rituals, does not bother us.
Love and kisses to Iplova
HWB
You've go to admit, even when using the kindest of terms, it is a bit of a strange idea HW?
ippy
-
I personally choose not to mock the Eucharist because I know what it means to some. It's my personal boundary. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't be free to mock should they so wish.
-
Sassy
Normally speaking, I do not read your posts, let alone respond to them. I did consider responding to yours to me above, but it is so lacking in any facts or sense that I am not going to do so. I will just point out that children should be given INFORMATION about as much of life as possible, but NOT told such things as taking communion are rational nor that this is symbolic of eating flesh and blood, particularly of a person dead for two thousand years.
As for your ridiculous point about eating steak, well, that is not human flesh, nor is it symbolic of some bizarre religious ritual.
That just isn't true.
You responded because you had never thought about the things I have mentioned above.
But far worse eating animal flesh if you think you are an animal.
That was the crux's wasn't it. So the false claim it made no sense swept away.
The fact is the sacrifice was given his body and blood to save from sin.
But it is strictly forbidden the eating of animal blood in sacrifices.
I asked you questions you never answered which shows you perfectly understood and in answering them you would have
shown your false indignation to be just that.
May be everyone is false in their own way. Take a look at the world how it tells illiterate adults there is no shame and they
can learn. But then look how you and others falsely accuse others that there post is lacking facts and makes no sense.
My post did make sense but it is the cop out that atheist use when faced with something they clearly do not want to answer.
Do you eat your steak well done or medium rare etc. Has it done you any harm?
Not clear or lacking fact? You tell me you don't understand what is written? You understood but you had never actually thought of communion for what it really is. Just as you never tested anything you believed about it.
If you believe all flesh is the same that we are all animals then doesn't that mean you are committing Cannibalism by eating animal flesh at all?
This again was not lacking facts... Nothing which could not be understood or did not make sense.
So next time do not use the cop outs because you see I used 'facts' of your own beliefs against you to show you cannot condemn the taking of communion which is bread and wine when you eat meat and believe yourself to be an animal.
-
www.dictionary.com/browse/cannibalism
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cannibal
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cannibal
cannibal meaning, definition, what is cannibal:
a person who eats human flesh, or an animal that eats the flesh of animals of its own type
:)
-
I personally choose not to mock the Eucharist because I know what it means to some. It's my personal boundary. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't be free to mock should they so wish.
-
Exactly, Rhi.
While I don't accept transubstantiation, nevertheless the sacrament is a profoundly moving part of my worship; bound as it is with the centrality of the Atonement.
Even though in our tradition the elements are, and remain, symbolic, they nevertheless represent for us a truth so profound and astounding that it transcends the mundane.
-
. Having tried to get drunk on RC communion wine, they were skimping. Buckfast Lite
Raspberry juice cordial in my childhood Methodist church.