bornagainathiest Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Hello. Never having been either a Roman Catholic or a Christian Fundamentalist, I can't claim to have more than a cursory knowledge of either system of belief. The mode of Christianity I adhered to was of the Born-Again Evangelical variety. Therefore, I'm asking for help in understanding the following puzzle about Biblical Literalism, as promoted by Christian Fundamentalists. Catholics maintain that the bread and the wine they use in their Communion ceremonies becomes the substance of Jesus but still has the appearance of bread made from wheat and wine made from grapes. Please correct me if I'm reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation incorrectly. Thanks. So the communion materials never actually change their appearance in the Roman way. But what about the stonewall Literalism of Christian Fundamentalism? Surely a totally literal interpretation of John 6:53-56 would require the Fundies to say, "Yes. There is no other interpretation. The bread and wine do literally become Jesus' flesh and blood." Ummm... so if they don't become flesh and blood before they enter the mouthes of the the faithful and they don't taste like flesh and blood then, maybe they become God's flesh and blood when they enter the stomach? Wouldn't this show up on an MRI scan of a Fundie's post-communion stomach? Or perhaps we'd find Jesus' body parts when dissecting the corpse of a Fundie who died drinking poison, a la Mark 16:18? Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek, but my question about a literal interpretation of John 6:53-56 is a serious one. Another case of non-literal interpretation by Biblical Literalists? Or not? Thanks. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Hello. Ummm... so if they don't become flesh and blood before they enter the mouthes of the the faithful and they don't taste like flesh and blood then, maybe they become God's flesh and blood when they enter the stomach? Wouldn't this show up on an MRI scan of a Fundie's post-communion stomach? Or perhaps we'd find Jesus' body parts when dissecting the corpse of a Fundie who died drinking poison, a la Mark 16:18? Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek, but my question about a literal interpretation of John 6:53-56 is a serious one. Another case of non-literal interpretation by Biblical Literalists? Or not? Thanks. BAA. It turns into the body and blood of Jesus upon entering the stomach. In order to get adequate genetic material for cloning Jesus, one must induce vomiting, not just spit out the wine and cracker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Obligatory Peter Griffin (taking communion): Woah! Is that really the blood of Christ? Priest: Yes. Peter: Man, that guy must have been wasted 24 hours a day, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I was a fundamentalist baptist, though the kind I was took that symbolically (though they never explained what the so-called metaphor was as usual when they want to make something a metaphor, which defeats the purpose of having a metaphor). So I know nothing of what they believe in regards to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I went to a catholic high school and I remember this being one of the first things I had a problem with in religion. I was perfectly fine with the eucharist being symbolic or a figurative representation of Jesus. But my teachers insisted that it was literally a physical change from bread into the body of christ. That just didn't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I went to a catholic high school and I remember this being one of the first things I had a problem with in religion. I was perfectly fine with the eucharist being symbolic or a figurative representation of Jesus. But my teachers insisted that it was literally a physical change from bread into the body of christ. That just didn't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Christians for some reason hate it when you accuse them of partaking in ritualized cannibalism though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Christians for some reason hate it when you accuse them of partaking in ritualized cannibalism though.... Well you are cannabalizing Jebus, that's different from cannnabilizm because Jebus is god's son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts