OK guys, you can have fun with this one.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/spirituality/shocking-ignorance-real-pres...
You can tell Bishops Barber and Barron that I have the answer to their question on the Eucharist.
I USED to believe in the real presence, but the poops, the cardinals, the bishops the priests, Bill Donahue and their support of our predator in chief and the pedophiles, the deliberate mistranslation of the Creed, the vatican’s Show Them No Mercy Prayer which advocates murdering wives on trumped up adultery charges and reiterates that Jesus was Mary Magdalene’s pimp, the Knights of Columbus, Jean Vianny, and Kavanaugh have all thoroughly convinced me. The Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol of the sanctity of their penises. I WILL NOT TOUCH IT!
SEE YOU IN OAKLAND!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
When my boys ask me questions, I just give answers and I don’t censor or correct their responses. I just tell them to “look it up”.
They once asked me what the Eucharist was (I think it was after our public school took the oldest on a “field trip” to the Catholic Church).
Anyway... I explained it and how Catholics believe it becomes the literal blood and flesh of Christ.
OMG you should have seen their faces. Cannibalism- they were so grossed out at the mere thought. So I explained some religions take it as just symbols... they were still grossed out that you would symbolically eat human flesh and drink blood.
OH dear, transubstantiation , again.
I can't work out whether the good bishops are being mendacious or naive . I suspect the actual percentage of believers whose understanding differs from doctrine is a lot higher than the bishops might think.
The belief that the communion host LITERALLY becomes the body and the wine the blood of Jesus comes from a single sentence.
It is not believed by protestant denominations, take a the reasonable approach the celebration of the eucharist is a memorial, not a constant miracle. This most Jesuitical of Catholic teachings is the point on which Matin Luther hung his hat to kick off the Reformation .
Today, as far as I know, this belief is accepted by Anglicans and Eastern rites Christians, but by no other denominations . That this subtle teaching is even considered by bishops right now is a strong indicator of how little priorities have changed within the Church over say the last 20 years.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Luke :22; 7-23 . "26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
":19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; DO THIS IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME ----"
Luther reference ; " Here I Stand"
“The belief that the communion host LITERALLY becomes the body and the wine the blood of Jesus comes from a single sentence.”
Incorrect. It comes from a reading of the entire Bible as a whole, as well as the Tradition of the Church. Jesus told His followers, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you.” Scripture tells us the crowd gasped, not unlike Whitefire13’s boys’ reaction. Because Jesus’ words were shocking. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, the crowd would not be outraged. They said to Jesus, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” And Jesus did not say, “No, no ‘yall got it wrong – I’m just speaking figuratively” Quite the opposite. He double downed on what He said. He said, “Amen, Amen, I say to you . . . my body is real food and blood is real drink” Scripture tells us the followers said, “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” And again, Jesus did not back down. He actually repeated exactly what He said the first time, but with even more descriptive words when actually translated don’t even simply mean “eat” The words He used mean “gnaw” and “crunch”, which shows He was speaking literally and not simply intending a general, “Oh, you must drink in my words” – or something like that. And then Scripture tells us many could not accept this and left. Jesus then turned to Peter and He said, “Do you too wish to leave?” And Peter, even though He believed, but did not quite understand how such a thing would be possible said, “To whom would we go. You alone have the words of eternal life”. Later Scripture goes on to talk about the importance of discerning the body and blood before partaking. And even the Old Testament is filled with foreshadowing of the Real Presence. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb, the spotless victim, sacrificed for all. Get it? Also, Jesus said, “This is my body”. He did not say, “This represents or symbolizes my body” So, the doctrine of the True Presence does not come down to one line. Also, all the early Church writers wrote about the True Presence and Christ’s Church passed on this teaching.
“This most Jesuitical of Catholic teachings is the point on which Matin Luther hung his hat to kick off the Reformation .”
Absolutely false. Where do you atheists get your information? Martin Luther believed in the True Presence. His beef was about corruption in the Church (which he was correct to speak against) and Papal infallibility, which he of course then was heretical.
ImaginaryJOY,
“Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you.” Scripture tells us the crowd gasped, not unlike Whitefire13’s boys’ reaction.
...and gasp is what any normal, moral person would do. Only an immoral sycophant could possibly believe that and want to follow it.
Dracula much?
“...and gasp is what any normal, moral person would do. Only an immoral sycophant could possibly believe that and want to follow it.
Dracula much?”
You do know it doesn’t taste like blood, right?
"You do know it doesn’t taste like blood, right?"
uh, because it's not blood, right? Never was, isn't, never will be. Duh.
It's a pity, I use to really admire Barron. I had the chance to speak to him once at a low point on my Catholic life and he was very compassionate.
On the outside now I see him in a very different light
“It's a pity, I use to really admire Barron. I had the chance to speak to him once at a low point on my Catholic life and he was very compassionate.
On the outside now I see him in a very different light”
How do you see him now? He’s great.
As someone holding up a disgusting and false institution
To be clear, I can not speak at all about him as a person or his own believe or morality. But his office makes how difficult for me to respect him as I once did
So let me digest his. Over 2/3 of all Catholics do not believe that the wine and wafer are actually a blood sacrifice, of flesh and blood.
So instead of actually educating those people, the church leaders instead decide to just beat them into submission, hold a day long service, where they just watch?
Obviously, opening up to dialogue and conversation is not how the church does things, it just dictates.
@joy
"Absolutely false. Where do you atheists get your information? Martin Luther believed in the True Presence.
'
Now you're just being dishonest. The issue of transubstantiation was crucial for Luther. Yes, he believed and taught that Jesus is present in the eucharist, but that the bread and wine wine does not literally become the body and blood of Jesus.
The Catholic church and the few branches it recognises are the only Christian churches that accept that tortuous belief . The doctrine of transubstantiation is neither clear nor obvious in the gospels. ( I reject the No true Scotsman fallacy used by many christian sects. IE that those who do not believe as they do are not true/real Christians)
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The foregoing is for argument sake only.My actual position : There is no credible evidence that Jesus actually said anything attributed to him in the gospels. IE NO contemporary evidence, NONE. Most of that claimed to be from Jesus is ex post facto, added even centuries after his putative death. I say 'putative', because although accepted by some scholars, there is no consensus on the historicity of Jesus.
That a wondering rabbi called something like Yeshua/ Yoshua bar Yusuf may have existed in first century Judea .That he possibly founded a small Jewish sect, perhaps like the Ebionites. That he upset the wrong people and was crucified. Sadly not an uncommon fate for a first century Jew in Judea. The sect he founded was not widely known as "Christian" before the Fourth century., when the emperor Theodosius began to use the term. Before that followers of Jesus were just as likely to call themselves 'followers of The Way'
That the religion called Christianity has little if anything to do with a poor little first century Rabbi who died in unimaginable agony.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
My references:
Martin Luther : "Here I Stand : A Life Of Martin Luther" 1950, by Roland Bainton. I admit it's over 40 years since I read the book. I'm probably a bit vague on some things, but not Luther's stand on the Eucharist. Nor on reason, which he described: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
― Martin Luther .
DESCRIPTION
This article provides a summary of Martin Luther's thought on the "how" of the real presence, an outline of the teaching of the sixteenth century Lutheran Symbols on the matter, a brief criticism of Lutheran reasons for denying the dogma of transubstantiation and some basic difficulties involved in this teaching from the Lutheran standpoint.
LARGER WORK
The American Ecclesiastical Review
PAGES
100-122
PUBLISHER & DATE
The Catholic University of America Press, December 1961
"Ever since the sixteenth century Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation has remained a controversial issue between Roman Catholics and Lutherans. Although both acknowledge the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Lutherans reject the doctrine concerning the conversion of the earthly gifts (bread and wine) as a philosophical explanation, which has nothing to do with revelation."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013
On Jesus:
Books by Bart Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" and "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'". Oxford University Press, US. 2003.' Both available from Amazon in book or ebook form .
"Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle" A N Wilson
On You tube there are lectures and short clips by Bishop John Shelby Spong, who has also written several best selling books . Recommended. Warning; pretty confronting to a practising believer
It never ceases to amaze me how little of their religion most apologists we get her seem to have. Most do not seem to have even read the bible. Rarely do any have the most basic understanding of the other Abrahamic Faiths. Knowledge of the early history of christianity in ( say first 200-- 300 years) is virtually unheard of.
An aside: I was educated (if you'll forgive the expression) at a Catholic boys school, in the late 1950's to early 1960's. We were actively discouraged from reading the bible " lest you become confused". I kid you not . So naturally I read the [ Jerusalem] bible cover to cover when I was 16. A lot of the old testament was pretty confusing, but that was OK. We had been taught that a lot of Genesis is allegorical. Didn't notice too many contradiction in the NT until I reached the resurrection. READ THOSE ACCOUNTS SIDE BY SIDE! Became truly bewildered on reading Revelations. At 16 concluded that it was written by a person who was either insane or under the influence of an hallucinogen. Today I think more likely written in fantasy as a criticism of Rome at the time.
@joy
"Absolutely false. Where do you atheists get your information? Martin Luther believed in the True Presence.
'
Now you're just being dishonest. The issue of transubstantiation was crucial for Luther. Yes, he believed and taught that Jesus is present in the eucharist, but that the bread and wine wine does not literally become the body and blood of Jesus.
The Catholic church and the few branches it recognises are the only Christian churches that accept that tortuous belief . The doctrine of transubstantiation is neither clear nor obvious in the gospels. ( I reject the No true Scotsman fallacy used by many christian sects. IE that those who do not believe as they do are not true/real Christians)
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The foregoing is for argument sake only. My actual position :
There is no credible evidence that Jesus actually said anything attributed to him in the gospels. IE NO contemporary evidence, NONE. Most of that claimed to be from Jesus is ex post facto, added even centuries after his putative death. I say 'putative', because although accepted by some scholars, there is no consensus on the historicity of Jesus.
That a wondering rabbi called something like Yeshua/ Yoshua bar Yusuf may have existed in first century Judea .That he possibly founded a small Jewish sect, perhaps like the Ebionites. That he upset the wrong people and was crucified. Sadly not an uncommon fate for a first century Jew in Judea. The sect he founded was not widely known as "Christian" before the Fourth century., when the emperor Theodosius began to use the term. Before that followers of Jesus in the many, many differing sects were just as likely to call themselves 'followers of The Way'
That the religion called Christianity has little if anything to do with a poor little first century Rabbi who died in unimaginable agony.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
My references:
Martin Luther : "Here I Stand : A Life Of Martin Luther" 1950, by Roland Bainton. I admit it's over 40 years since I read the book. I'm probably a bit vague on some things, but not Luther's stand on the Eucharist. Nor on reason, which he described: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
― Martin Luther .
DESCRIPTION
This article provides a summary of Martin Luther's thought on the "how" of the real presence, an outline of the teaching of the sixteenth century Lutheran Symbols on the matter, a brief criticism of Lutheran reasons for denying the dogma of transubstantiation and some basic difficulties involved in this teaching from the Lutheran standpoint.
LARGER WORK
The American Ecclesiastical Review
PAGES
100-122
PUBLISHER & DATE
The Catholic University of America Press, December 1961
"Ever since the sixteenth century Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation has remained a controversial issue between Roman Catholics and Lutherans. Although both acknowledge the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Lutherans reject the doctrine concerning the conversion of the earthly gifts (bread and wine) as a philosophical explanation, which has nothing to do with revelation."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013
On Jesus:
Books by Bart Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" and "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'". Oxford University Press, US. 2003.' Both available from Amazon in book or ebook form .
"Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle" A N Wilson
On You tube there are lectures and short clips by Bishop John Shelby Spong, who has also written several best selling books . Recommended. Warning; pretty confronting to a practising believer
It never ceases to amaze me how little of their religion most apologists we get her seem to have. Most do not seem to have even read the bible. Rarely do any have the most basic understanding of the other Abrahamic Faiths. Knowledge of the early history of christianity in ( say first 200-- 300 years) is virtually unheard of.
An aside: I was educated (if you'll forgive the expression) at a Catholic boys school, in the late 1950's to early 1960's. We were actively discouraged from reading the bible " lest you become confused". I kid you not . So naturally I read the [ Jerusalem] bible cover to cover when I was 16. A lot of the old testament was pretty confusing, but that was OK. We had been taught that a lot of Genesis is allegorical. Didn't notice too many contradiction in the NT until I reached the resurrection. READ THOSE ACCOUNTS SIDE BY SIDE! Became truly bewildered on reading Revelations. At 16 concluded that it was written by a person who was either insane or under the influence of an hallucinogen. Today I think more likely written in fantasy as a criticism of Rome at the time.
“Now you're just being dishonest. The issue of transubstantiation was crucial for Luther. Yes, he believed and taught that Jesus is present in the eucharist, but that the bread and wine wine does not literally become the body and blood of Jesus.”
You’re not painting the full story . . .
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed in the Real Presence. He didn’t want to speculate about metaphysics and how the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ, but simply believed in the miracle of the literal presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood “alongside” the bread and wine (consubstantiation). Luther wrote:“Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528)He rebuked the symbolic view of the Eucharist, held by the majority of Protestants today:“[S]ince we are confronted by God’s words, ‘This is my body’ – distinct, clear, common, definite words, which certainly are no trope, either in Scripture or in any language — we must embrace them with faith … not as hairsplitting sophistry dictates but as God says them for us, we must repeat these words after him and hold to them” (Ibid.).
Preaching on John 6, Luther stated:“All right! There we have it! This is clear, plain, and unconcealed: ‘I am speaking of My flesh and blood.
https://detroitcatholic.com/news/the-michigan-catholic/luther-s-defense-...
Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?
A. Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/
“The Catholic church and the few branches it recognises are the only Christian churches that accept that tortuous belief .”
Yes, the Catholic Church are the only ones who today accept this teaching based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, making them the one, true Church established by Jesus Christ Himself.
“The doctrine of transubstantiation is neither clear nor obvious in the gospels.”
I disagree as I already explained earlier. Sacred Scripture reveals this truth, Christ’s Church confirms it as well as the early Church fathers and Church established by Christ until the Protestant Reformation when many left Christ’s established Church and started their own churches.
“The foregoing is for argument sake only.My actual position : There is no credible evidence that Jesus actually said anything attributed to him in the gospels. IE NO contemporary evidence, NONE.”
Except reading the Bible as a whole, the recording of Jesus’ own words, acknowledging the context of certain New Testament passages and the reaction of the crowd who actually heard the very words spoken by Christ.
“That a wondering rabbi called something like Yeshua/ Yoshua bar Yusuf may have existed in first century Judea .That he possibly founded a small Jewish sect, perhaps like the Ebionites. That he upset the wrong people and was crucified. Sadly not an uncommon fate for a first century Jew in Judea. The sect he founded was not widely known as "Christian" before the Fourth century., when the emperor Theodosius began to use the term. Before that followers of Jesus were just as likely to call themselves 'followers of The Way'”
He, he . . . sounds like that came straight from an Atheist 101 class.
“On You tube there are lectures and short clips by Bishop John Shelby Spong, who has also written several best selling books . Recommended. Warning; pretty confronting to a practising believer”
Ha, ha,ha . . . yes, heresy usually is.
“It never ceases to amaze me how little of their religion most apologists we get her seem to have.”
It never ceases to amaze me how little of their religion supposed ex Catholics knew. They left a faith they had no idea what taught in the first place. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, “I doubt there are 100 people in the world who reject the Catholic faith. There are thousands who reject what they think the Church teaches”
“An aside: I was educated (if you'll forgive the expression) at a Catholic boys school, in the late 1950's to early 1960's. We were actively discouraged from reading the bible " lest you become confused". I kid you not .”
That is troubling and wrong. It doesn’t however negate the truth that the Church teaches. It also could be some misguided catholic teacher succumbing to the culture of the time and attempting to dumb everything down, skip any kind of memorization or knowing facts and replace catechism with a vague general teaching like, “Jesus loves you” while telling you to sit in a circle, make felt banners and sing Kumbaya” As you can see the collateral from such faulty teaching is in people like you rejecting what they thought was the Catholic Church, when in fact you rejected some watered down version of just another spiritual secular cult. Too bad.
“So naturally I read the [ Jerusalem] bible cover to cover when I was 16. A lot of the old testament was pretty confusing, but that was OK. We had been taught that a lot of Genesis is allegorical. Didn't notice too many contradiction in the NT until I reached the resurrection. READ THOSE ACCOUNTS SIDE BY SIDE! Became truly bewildered on reading Revelations. At 16 concluded that it was written by a person who was either insane or under the influence of an hallucinogen. Today I think more likely written in fantasy as a criticism of Rome at the time.”
So, sounds like you tried to use the same messed up approach those who taught you used – just rendering a guess at what you felt like it seemed to be saying. Congratulations! You now can understand the importance of having One, True Authoritative Church to safeguard Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, less we end up with thousands of off shoot splinter groups all teaching different things all giving their own personal take on what it all means. Yikes!
@ Joy
"That is troubling and wrong. It doesn’t however negate the truth that the Church teaches. It also could be some misguided catholic teacher succumbing to the culture of the time and attempting to dumb everything down, skip any kind of memorization or knowing facts and replace catechism with a vague general teaching like, “Jesus loves you” while telling you to sit in a circle, make felt banners and sing Kumbaya” As you can see the collateral from such faulty teaching is in people like you rejecting what they thought was the Catholic Church, when in fact you rejected some watered down version of just another spiritual secular cult. Too bad."
And you are the true Scotsman because ... ?
I haven't heard Kumbaya in about 40 years.
It can't be good for a man of my age to laugh that hard, it really can't, but thank you for that belly laugh anyway. Why are theists always so irony impaired?
“It can't be good for a man of my age to laugh that hard, it really can't, but thank you for that belly laugh anyway. Why are theists always so irony impaired?”
It’s interesting to me that anyone would prefer receiving a bunch of fake news reports over one true one. I guess people prefer hearing what they want to hear over truth. It’s the story of moral relativism – and the illogic of it. Not recognizing the irony of thinking what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me actually contradicts truth itself and renders it meaningless. Man has always been tempted to think he can decide his own truth.
@ Joy
"Not recognizing the irony of thinking what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me actually contradicts truth itself and renders it meaningless"
No, it just means you disagree with an individual.
So how do we get to the truth? Do we use critical thinking, recollection of memory, and such tools as logic and epistemology, or just bend our knees to some bronze age barbaric tribe of nomads who had their superstitions put to paper over two thousand years ago?
Another irony overload.
Can I have that in English please? My favourite bit is the asinine rationale that truth varies according to perspective, I guess flat earthers are owed an apology after all, again it can't be good for a man my age to laugh this hard.
Well as a theists you should know all about that, however as an atheist I set an open minded objective standard for validating all claims, that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrate to supported any claim before I accept it as valid.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for the existence of any deity or deities?
*cough* Christians stole communion from paganism *coigh*
“*cough* Christians stole communion from paganism *coigh*”
*cough* playing the atheist 'stolen from paganism' card *cough*
@Joy
I know! Right?
It's like they've never heard of Melchizedek.
@ Jo and Lyin
Pagan origins of the Eucharist
Oh bring up Melchidezek? You know that he was a pagan right? That his priesthood was likel for Zedek, a Canaanite deity worshipped in pre-Israelite Jerusalem?
"Another prominent pagan religion that was at the height of its popularity at around the same time as Jesus was the cult of Mithras. Mithras actually shares many attributes with Jesus, including a last supper just before Mithras ascended to heaven. Initiates of the Mithras cult partook of a sacred meal in honor of Mithras that included both bread and wine, which were believed to be the flesh and blood of a great bull that was slain by Mithras."https://classroom.synonym.com/the-pagan-origin-of-the-communion-12087032...
There were more including a couple of fake Messiahs in the early 1st century.
Muppets.
@Old man shouts...
I'm pretty sure the only way Melchizedek qualifies as a pagan is if you label anything resembling the Eucharist- pagan. Libations and offering of first fruits to God is not something plagiarised by one religion from another. Even pagans intuitively understood the concept of 'communion'.
@ Lion
He was a priest of the god Zedek... can you actually read?
@Old Man Re: To Lyin' Heart - "... can you actually read?"
Well, when you cross the reading comprehension skills of a garden slug with the wearing of God-goggles, how much do you honestly expect from the guy?
@Old Man Shouts...
Nope. King of Salem.
You're confused.
Anyway, why in this age of quantum physics, dark matter, nanotechnology, are people struggling with the idea of transubstantiation? Heck, we are routinely expected to believe that there is such a thing as the spirit/soul of a 'man' born into the physical material body of a woman.
@ Lion
What? another fact you don't like, being handwaved away? What a surprise.
Nobody "struggles with transubstantiation" except those soon to be ex religious that are just realising that it is an impossible lie.
I don't struggle with it because it just does not exist and you have not a skerrick of evidence that it does.
@Lamb in Lion's Clothes Re: "Heck, we are routinely expected to believe that there is such a thing as the spirit/soul of a 'man' born into the physical material body of a woman."
Wondered how long it would take you to get to that. I knew it was only a matter of time since you keep getting that over-inflated ass of yours handed back to you on every other topic you try to poison. You are such a lovely ray of sunshine exposing the true hideous underbelly of your chosen faith. But, please, by all means, do feel free to go that route. Just ask your Troll-buddy Joy how well that worked out for her, though. I have my suspicions you two are likely very well acquainted on some level. Regardless, you might want to go to my "So Full of Joy" thread and read up a bit before you decide to continue on this particular course. Just a friendly little word of advice. Now get back out there and work on your roaring a bit more, you darling little fur ball. It still is only sounding like cute little mews. It's all about projection, sweetie. From the diaphragm. Just takes practice.
@ Joyless
"You now can understand the importance of having One, True Authoritative Church to safeguard Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition,"
Oh LOL...lets just brush the destruction of all the competing sects and texts prior to the 5th century. Let's forget about Marcion, the Ebionites, the Thomasinian Church, the Syriac bible, The Copts. The gnostic tradition. Yep, lets thank the three gods and their chosen church for an authoritarian bowdlerised collection of texts, none of which existed before 70CE save some letters from a writer who wrote down instructions from his hallucinations.
Yes thank the Early Church Fathers for their wisdom and complete harmony of attitudes and lack of in fighting, Such a period of peace and tranquillity in the nascent cults.
And lets thank the wonderful Bishop of Rome in 492CE for making sure that only the 'correct' texts and writings were included in the official codex of the day while everything else was to be eradicated....
Yeh..the "one true church". Where would we be without it?
Seriously Joy, are you on medication or just utterly ignorant of the early church history?
You do know that there is not one skerrick of contemporary evidence for your jesus as described in the gospels? Nothing?
Or, are you like most cathfans wearing your hermeneutical glasses out in a vain attempt to justify your bloody history ?
Pages