Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Conditional Love


Just a quick post on this subject - since it's already been covered extensively; but did God really have to torture himself to convince himself to forgive own creation? And does he really have to torture those of his own creation that don't believe he did it?

There seems to be a lot of 'torture' in this 'loving' agreement. Maybe God's a sadist.

But then, he can hardly get mad at those people who display anything other than a medieval perception of purity; I won't even get into Catholicism here. They actually believe they perform ritual cannibalisation of Jesus.

15 comments:

suzette said...

i don't hate you. i am catholic, and i love my rituals. does not mean you can't have your opinion. i certainly have mine. by the way, your blog is pretty good. it made me think.

MR. X said...

Thanks. I think there are as many rational religious people as there are rational atheists.

MR. X said...

Just to clear that last comment up, I mean to say that: I don't hold any disrespect for anyone's beliefs; I just enjoy putting across my own and having them challenged.

mrsham said...

"I won't even get into Catholisism here."

You just did get into Catholicism.

"They actually believe they perform ritual cannibalisation of Jesus."

No, they don't (well, you said you enjoyed having your opinions challenged!) At least, not if they understand what the Catholic church teaches about transubstantiation. Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

In particular:

"The Roman Catholic Church considers the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is about what is changed, not about how the change occurs, the best defence against what it sees as the mutually opposed interpretations, on the one hand, a merely figurative understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it teaches that the change of the substance is real), and, on the other hand, an interpretation that would amount to cannibalistic eating of the flesh and corporal drinking of the blood of Christ (it teaches that the accidents that remain are real, not an illusion, and that Christ is "really, truly, and substantially present" in the Eucharist,[4] not physically present, as he was physically present in the Palestine of two millennia ago)."

PS I don't buy full-on transubstantiation, because I don't buy substance metaphysics; but I also don't buy misrepresenting the beliefs of others, whether deliberately or through ignorance. And, for what it's worth, I'm not a Catholic.

GCT said...

So, in other words, Catholics believe that they really are eating Jesus, but they blanche at calling it canabalization (which it is, but that's such a negative word). Got it. The more I speak to Catholics (I know you aren't one mrsham) the more I find out how slippery the Catholic church is. This is yet another example.

Mrsham said...

"Catholics believe that they really are eating Jesus, but they blanche at calling it canabalization (which it is, but that's such a negative word). Got it."

Sorry, you haven't.

They simply don't believe that what they are eating is physically human flesh and blood (there is no change of chemistry), therefore no cannibalization in any normal use of the word. The church teaches that at mass a Roman Catholic is *not* eating bits of Jesus of Nazareth's dead corpse -- see above -- but his entire, risen (non-human) body and spirit present in a mysterious way behind and within the bread and wine, which remains, physically, bread and wine. This is significant theologically as it means they are communing with the living God, not a lump of inactive flesh. And don't worry, they don't think it hurts him.

Therefore I don't think you can say cannabilization with any accuracy as it implies consuming, digesting and then crapping out human flesh.

You say slippery, I say complex (perhaps paradoxical, but that goes with the territory of religion). The first implies wilful evasion and deceit, the second doesn't.

MR. X said...

So what's your stance on contraception and AIDS?

mrsham said...

I've made use of some contraception this morning (it's my birthday)

I don't have AIDS to the best of my knowledge.

Why do you ask?

MR. X said...

The Catholic Church's been responsible for God knows how many deaths by preventing contraception in third world countries.

GCT said...

mrsham,
"Sorry, you haven't."

Sorry, but I have. Just because Catholics dress up their strange ritual in other terms doesn't mean that it isn't Cannibalism. They actually believe that the bread and wine become Jesus's body and blood, literally. This is cannibalism, since they also believe that Jesus was fully human (as well as being fully divine).

"Therefore I don't think you can say cannabilization with any accuracy as it implies consuming, digesting and then crapping out human flesh."

Want to go to the definition?

3. 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.

"You say slippery, I say complex (perhaps paradoxical, but that goes with the territory of religion). The first implies wilful evasion and deceit, the second doesn't."

No, it's slippery. They know full well what they are doing and that it falls under the auspices of cannibalism, they simply are calling it something else to get rid of the negative connotation.

mrsham said...

gct - You've yet to deal with my main point, made twice, that Catholics do not believe they are eating something that is, in chemical terms, human flesh. It tastes like bread, smells like bread etc. This seems significant to me. Does it not to you? (This will be my final post on the issue as I think we're starting to go in circles)

mr. x - I do not agree with the Vatican's teaching on contraception (obviously). I also agree with you that in some contexts it can cause extreme harm and I'm therefore opposed to it.

As I'm not a Catholic I have no ethical dilemma with taking this stance. However I'd also note that there is, for the Catholic, the possibility of principled dissent on this issue (and others). Indeed this has been given a strong voice from high levels of church office in Canada in 1968: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

In The Real World (TM) I know plenty of Catholics who do in fact dissent.

Steven Bently said...

Ah, nothing like the flaming love of God...eck!

GCT said...

mrsham,
"gct - You've yet to deal with my main point, made twice, that Catholics do not believe they are eating something that is, in chemical terms, human flesh."

Actually, I have dealt with that, you just refuse to budge. I don't care what Catholics profess, because their actions and their beliefs still fit under the definition of cannibalism. Of course they aren't going to come out and say that they practice cannibalism, because of the stigma that is attached to that practice in our society/culture. But, due to the doctrine of transubstantiation, they believe they are eating Jesus, not bread.

ceeslouis said...

"Medievel perseption of purity." Is there a modern perseption of purity? Or we just kind of over that now?

MR. X said...

The modern perCeption of purity is a lot more liberal.