Eucharist and zombies

[Non Sequitur]

This debate was evolving beyond the random post section. This officially might be the most random thread I have created.


I just stumbled upon this quote in the comments section of some news article I was reading...

Christianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

That pretty much sums up Christian theology in plain English! :lol:

Just thought I'd share it for a laugh!

If I'm going to be picky, I would have to take issue with "zombie" and "symbolically." He is actually alive and it's not just a symbol. Other than that, it's alright.

Well, given that Jesus was killed by crucifixion and that it is Christian doctrine that he rose again (walking around a bit before disappearing), I think the "zombie" label is reasonably applicable for this purpose. ;)

As for the "symbolically", you can't be serious here are you? Are you asserting that the eucharist is "defacto" cannibalism? :eek:

I should think "symbolically" is the preferred route there! :shrug:

:lol: Well, as I said, if I am going to be picky I have to assert that he is not the "living dead", aka zombie, but actually living almost like you and I are (there are differences of course).



the question of "what happens during communion" is one of the most technical debates in all of Christianity therefore the terminology is very precise. If you say symbolically or symbol you are invoking a whole school of thought that Huldrych Zwingli came up with. Without going into the longest post ever on communion theology, I don't like the Zwingli school (despite how cool the name is :lol:). The answer from a Lutheran perspective is that there is nothing symbolic here. Through the bread and the wine the grace of God is bestowed on us by Christ being with us.

by the way, if you are Catholic, the answer is yes, The substance of the bread and wine does turn into Jesus' body. So again, no symbolism.

The 'descriptive passage' only has to be logically correct, it doesn't have to pander to Christian's own theological rationales. On this basis, I think the "zombie" term is reasonable given that Christianity speaks of one who "rose from the dead" - which is the basic definition of a zombie. :)

Ok well when I think zombie, I think a dead corpse that happens to sill be waking. Also, zombies seem to not really have a will of their own. However, the resurrection Christ is nothing like a zombie as typically described in popular culture.

Yes, I well understand the technical debate. Which is why I'm so freaked out that you would take that line - since if you reject the symbolism, you are left with cannibalism and magic. :shrug:

I should think that cannibalism would be something that Christianity ought to abjure rather than celebrate. But hey, I'm not a Christian so what do I know?

Well, you have to talk to a Catholic to get their explanation of events, but in my own little understanding the bread and wine are not actually the body and blood. However, the bread and wine are the "means of grace" (the technical term for such things). Grace is bestowed upon the people of God by the bread and wine. Far from a symbol

I thought we needed a fun religion thread.

[The Drunk Guy]

Perhaps he was one of these fancy new 'rage' zombies that are super-powered and sometimes intelligent. :shrug:

Also, I would attend mass if they served flesh so long as it was prepared in a nice red wine sauce. I'll take steak over crackers any day, even if it is human.

[Americano]

Perhaps he was one of these fancy new 'rage' zombies that are super-powered and sometimes intelligent. :shrug:

Also, I would attend mass if they served flesh so long as it was prepared in a nice red wine sauce. I'll take steak over crackers any day, even if it is human.

Which part of long pig would be similar to a ribeye steak (bone-in)?

Where would the grill be placed in relation to the alter?

Could the red wine be served in 16 ounce stemmed glasses? With refills?

[Michael]

This debate was evolving beyond the random post section. This officially might be the most random thread I have created.

Does your spiritual advisor at the seminary know you post threads like this?

Too bad you are not a Roman Catholic - I can imagine the Priest's face when you 'confess' to this sin! :lol:

Btw, this thread should be titled "Eucharist & Ressurrection or Cannibalism & Zombies - you decide!" ;)

Ok well when I think zombie, I think a dead corpse that happens to sill be waking. Also, zombies seem to not really have a will of their own. However, the resurrection Christ is nothing like a zombie as typically described in popular culture.
Yes, but one could argue that Jesus doesn't really have a will of his own either since he is 'one and the same' with God and the Holy Ghost! ;)

And there is no definitional requirement that Zombies are controlled by others - that's just a particular feature of Voodoo.

In pop culture, Zombies seem to have a mind of their own. :shrug:

Ergo, the Zombie statement seems justified. :D

Well, you have to talk to a Catholic to get their explanation of events, but in my own little understanding the bread and wine are not actually the body and blood. However, the bread and wine are the "means of grace" (the technical term for such things). Grace is bestowed upon the people of God by the bread and wine. Far from a symbol
If the bread and wine of the eucharist are no longer 'bread and wine' and have been magically turned into the flesh and blood of Christ, that's cannibalism.

I think one has to go with the 'symbolism' line in order to avoid the cannibalism interpretation. Christians have been long accused of cannibalism because of this. Rightly so in my opinion based on your comments.

I thought we needed a fun religion thread.
Indeed, the topic is a colorful one! :lol:

[Margot]

Yes, but one could argue that Jesus doesn't really have a will of his own either since he is 'one and the same' with God and the Holy Ghost! ;)

And there is no definitional requirement that Zombies are controlled by others - that's just a particular feature of Voodoo.

In pop culture, Zombies seem to have a mind of their own. :shrug:

Ergo, the Zombie statement seems justified. :D



That is EXACTLY what I thought.

[The Drunk Guy]

Which part of long pig would be similar to a ribeye steak (bone-in)?Teres major and minor? :shrug:

Where would the grill be placed in relation to the alter?Well, I imaged a griddle running along the front of the alter...

Could the red wine be served in 16 ounce stemmed glasses? With refills?
...that would be next to the Killian's keg. Yeah, the red wine's in the flesh, so you just need a good Irish Red to wash down the savior.

[Non Sequitur]

Congrats Michael, you have made me go back and read parts of Church fathers that I have never read before.

Does your spiritual advisor at the seminary know you post threads like this?

Too bad you are not a Roman Catholic - I can imagine the Priest's face when you 'confess' to this sin! :lol:

Btw, this thread should be titled "Eucharist & Ressurrection or Cannibalism & Zombies - you decide!" ;)

Well, it would be interesting if my candidacy committee read this thread :lol:

that would also be a better thread title.


Yes, but one could argue that Jesus doesn't really have a will of his own either since he is 'one and the same' with God and the Holy Ghost! ;)

And there is no definitional requirement that Zombies are controlled by others - that's just a particular feature of Voodoo.

In pop culture, Zombies seem to have a mind of their own. :shrug:

Ergo, the Zombie statement seems justified. :D

wow! we are going to dabble in so many different areas of Christian theology :D

Christ has to have a will of his own because if he does not, his sacrifice makes no sense. The death of Christ only really "works" (for lack of a better word) if Christ freely chooses to obey.

However, I would still say that the "zombie" example still is not right. I will concede that zombies have a will, but another important thing to me seems to be the nature of zombies. Zombies (in popular culture) are usually portrayed as some horrible accident and a vicious perversion of true humanity. This does not apply to Christ because the resurrection of the dead is the end goal of all creation. Therefore, Christ is neither an accident or a perversion of true humanity, but true humanity itself (THE true human).


If the bread and wine of the eucharist are no longer 'bread and wine' and have been magically turned into the flesh and blood of Christ, that's cannibalism.

I think one has to go with the 'symbolism' line in order to avoid the cannibalism interpretation. Christians have been long accused of cannibalism because of this. Rightly so in my opinion based on your comments.

This was the part i had to go back and read for. I will confess that I usually skip over the cannibalism debate in the early Church writings :o

I think we need to clarify what I think is going on. The bread is not actually changed into the physical body of Christ but Christ is present with and through the bread. By partaking in the sacrament, one is "made alive in Christ" (Ephesians 2:5).

Now if we are Catholic, we have to get into Aristotelian Metaphysics.

[Margot]

wow! we are going to dabble in so many different areas of Christian theology :D

Christ has to have a will of his own because if he does not, his sacrifice makes no sense. The death of Christ only really "works" (for lack of a better word) if Christ freely chooses to obey.

However, I would still say that the "zombie" example still is not right. I will concede that zombies have a will, but another important thing to me seems to be the nature of zombies. Zombies (in popular culture) are usually portrayed as some horrible accident and a vicious perversion of true humanity. This does not apply to Christ because the resurrection of the dead is the end goal of all creation. Therefore, Christ is neither an accident or a perversion of true humanity, but true humanity itself (THE true human).




So then the father, son, and holy ghost are three separate individuals?

The way I see it, either Jesus had no free will to begin with because he's just a puppet for the big G, OR christianity is polytheistic.

Choose between your zombie, or your gods.

[Michael]

Congrats Michael, you have made me go back and read parts of Church fathers that I have never read before.

'Tis my pleasure, though not my intent. :D

This was the part i had to go back and read for. I will confess that I usually skip over the cannibalism debate in the early Church writings :o

I think we need to clarify what I think is going on. The bread is not actually changed into the physical body of Christ but Christ is present with and through the bread. By partaking in the sacrament, one is "made alive in Christ" (Ephesians 2:5).

Brilliant. I smell some good old Alexandrian neoplatonism there at the root - filtered through with some first-class Aristotlean scholasticism! :lol:

:whiteflag:

I can't/won't touch that one. ;)

[Margot]

This was the part i had to go back and read for. I will confess that I usually skip over the cannibalism debate in the early Church writings :o

I think we need to clarify what I think is going on. The bread is not actually changed into the physical body of Christ but Christ is present with and through the bread. By partaking in the sacrament, one is "made alive in Christ" (Ephesians 2:5).

Now if we are Catholic, we have to get into Aristotelian Metaphysics.

Then Jesus was lying when he said "Take, eat; this is my body?" (Matthew 26:26)

He might as well have said "would you like to meet my one-eyed snake?"
:angel:

[Zarquon]

Outrageous and illogical justifications for concepts held on to because they are traditional, even though they make no sense in our context as opposed to the primeval one (in which their progenitors really didn't know any better).
That's what this and most theology is to me.

[Americano]

Teres major and minor? :shrug:

Well, I imaged a griddle running along the front of the alter...


...that would be next to the Killian's keg. Yeah, the red wine's in the flesh, so you just need a good Irish Red to wash down the savior.

They'd probably still want a profession of faith and increased regular tithe for that meal. Crackers and cheap wine make for a more desirable bottom line.

I'll stay with market prime or choice beef ribeye cut and beverage of my choice and skip the meetings.

[Americano]

Outrageous and illogical justifications for concepts held on to because they are traditional, even though they make no sense in our context as opposed to the primeval one (in which their progenitors really didn't know any better).
That's what this and most theology is to me.

A method of gathering devotion and subsequent control.

[Non Sequitur]

So then the father, son, and holy ghost are three separate individuals?

The way I see it, either Jesus had no free will to begin with because he's just a puppet for the big G, OR christianity is polytheistic.

Choose between your zombie, or your gods.

Ok well, here is officially the most complicated topic in all of Christian theology. the Formula from the Council of Nicea is three persons in one essence and one essence in three person. Each person is co-eternal and same in essence and power as the other two but also distinct. One does not act or will without the other, but each are also different.

If you don't understand, don't worry. Nobody understands. Part of the reason for the doctrine is to illustrate how the Triune God is "Completely Other." There is nothing like God.

Then Jesus was lying when he said "Take, eat; this is my body?" (Matthew 26:26)

He might as well have said "would you like to meet my one-eyed snake?"
:angel:
Or "is" does not simply mean "equals"

by the way, the word "is" might be the most hotly contested word in Christian theology.

[Non Sequitur]

Outrageous and illogical justifications for concepts held on to because they are traditional, even though they make no sense in our context as opposed to the primeval one (in which their progenitors really didn't know any better).
That's what this and most theology is to me.

A method of gathering devotion and subsequent control.

Both those positions make sense only because the two of you don't hold to the primary two positions of faith:

1. the Divine exists
2. that the divine has revealed itself in some way.

[Margot]

by the way, the word "is" might be the most hotly contested word in Christian theology.

If the verb "to be" is the most hotly contested aspect of the Bible, how do you believe any of it?

There is nothing like God.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/158536564_4f716c3d37_m.jpg

[Non Sequitur]

If the verb "to be" is the most hotly contested aspect of the Bible, how do you believe any of it?

well, I constantly say you don't believe in God because of the Bible, but believe in the Bible because you believe in God first.

This word is contested because in this particular place in scripture there is nothing to give it more context. Presently I'm learning Biblical Greek and we had to translate this passage and it has no more context there than in English. However, this does not mean that other parts of scripture are clear.



http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/158536564_4f716c3d37_m.jpg

sometimes God is that scary :lol:

[The Drunk Guy]

They'd probably still want a profession of faith and increased regular tithe for that meal. Crackers and cheap wine make for a more desirable bottom line.

I'll stay with market prime or choice beef ribeye cut and beverage of my choice and skip the meetings.
Shit, I've had days that I'd show up for mass if they'd just open a can of potted meat to go on that shit.

And they wouldn't need an increase in tithe rates...sales would go through the roof. ;)

"Get your salvation here! Hot, juicy salvation! Come on in and get your pint of piety!"

[The Drunk Guy]

Outrageous and illogical justifications for concepts held on to because they are traditional, even though they make no sense in our context as opposed to the primeval one (in which their progenitors really didn't know any better).
That's what this and most theology is to me.
To me, theology has revealed itself to be nothing more than a bunch of fanboys debating a really old superhero.

"JESUS DOES TO FLY!"

"Nuh-uh! Jesus floated. That's not the same as flying!"

"ARGH! You'll burn in Hell for that!"

:shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

To me, theology has revealed itself to be nothing more than a bunch of fanboys debating a really old superhero.

"JESUS DOES TO FLY!"

"Nuh-uh! Jesus floated. That's not the same as flying!"

"ARGH! You'll burn in Hell for that!"

:shrug:

Why is it that it's important for people to think coherently in everything in life except theology? All theology really is is an attempt to think clearly about God :shrug:

[Margot]

Why is it that it's important for people to think coherently in everything in life except theology? All theology really is is an attempt to think clearly about God :shrug:

If this is about coherency, then I have to ask "what is coherent about God in the first place?"

Particularly when our single "viable" account of Him happens to be filled pesky little words like "is." Either we have to work with the Bible, and therefore we are inherently without coherence (DON'T MAKE ME CITE THE SHE-BEARS AGAIN ;) ), or we have to go with "oh, I just have a feeling that someone loves me," or, "oh, I hear Him talking to me;" both of which are fundamental aspects of schizophrenia (again inherently sans coherence).*

CASE IN POINT: I dare you to make sense of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk&feature=player_embedded)

[The Drunk Guy]

Why is it that it's important for people to think coherently in everything in life except theology? All theology really is is an attempt to think clearly about God :shrug:
People should always be skeptical, not coherent.

[The Drunk Girl]

If this is about coherency, then I have to ask "what is coherent about God in the first place?"

Particularly when our single "viable" account of Him happens to be filled pesky little words like "is." Either we have to work with the Bible, and therefore we are inherently without coherence (DON'T MAKE ME CITE THE SHE-BEARS AGAIN ;) ), or we have to go with "oh, I just have a feeling that someone loves me," or, "oh, I hear Him talking to me;" both of which are fundamental aspects of schizophrenia (again inherently sans coherence).*

CASE IN POINT: I dare you to make sense of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk&feature=player_embedded)


...or this (http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=56293@ktvt.dayport.com)

Article (http://cbs11tv.com/religion/stephanie.madden.granbury.2.1826358.html)

[Americano]

Both those positions make sense only because the two of you don't hold to the primary two positions of faith:

1. the Divine exists
2. that the divine has revealed itself in some way.

I think you know my stance on divine faith and personal visions is defined by televangelists and others demanding the check (or credit card) in exchange for eternal salvation.

[Zarquon]

Both those positions make sense only because the two of you don't hold to the primary two positions of faith:

1. the Divine exists
2. that the divine has revealed itself in some way.
I know of no compelling reason or evidence for believing the first (and therefore the second one as well). And then there is that rather successful endeavor called science and the knowledge produced by it, which coupled with philosophy don't leave any room for religion in my life, except as a nuisance and an inhibitor. Further, there is the experience of living in one of the most deprived, conservative, ignorant, superstitious, religious and 'spiritual' countries in the world (funny how these things go together), and having seen firsthand what that sort of 'thinking' does, and also having religious parents and having to live by their arbitrary rules.

[Americano]

I know of no compelling reason or evidence for believing the first (and therefore the second one as well). And then there is that rather successful endeavor called science and the knowledge produced by it, which coupled with philosophy don't leave any room for religion in my life, except as a nuisance and an inhibitor. Further, there is the experience of living in one of the most deprived, conservative, ignorant, superstitious, religious and 'spiritual' countries in the world (funny how these things go together), and having seen firsthand what that sort of 'thinking' does, and also having religious parents and having to live by their arbitrary rules.

You're gonna love Buffalo!

[Zarquon]

You're gonna love Buffalo!
I sure intend to (and hope I will).

[Non Sequitur]

If this is about coherency, then I have to ask "what is coherent about God in the first place?"

Particularly when our single "viable" account of Him happens to be filled pesky little words like "is." Either we have to work with the Bible, and therefore we are inherently without coherence (DON'T MAKE ME CITE THE SHE-BEARS AGAIN ;) ), or we have to go with "oh, I just have a feeling that someone loves me," or, "oh, I hear Him talking to me;" both of which are fundamental aspects of schizophrenia (again inherently sans coherence).*

CASE IN POINT: I dare you to make sense of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk&feature=player_embedded)

:lol: that video is pretty crazy, but do you always judge an entire world view by the out of this world crazies? You're right that I can't really make sense of it, but I can't make sense of extremist politics either. That doesn't mean all politics is incoherent.

Frankly, the randomness of Scripture is what makes it believable to me. If a group of people decide to lie, their story usually hangs together too well. The lie fits together too well. If Scripture was a lie, there probably wouldn't be any strange stuff like the she-bears episode. Since scripture was written over thousands of years by multiple writers in multiple languages there should be some pretty awkward stories.

People should always be skeptical, not coherent.

So it's ok to be contradictory and incoherent as long as you don't believe anything? :shrug:


...or this (http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=56293@ktvt.dayport.com)

Article (http://cbs11tv.com/religion/stephanie.madden.granbury.2.1826358.html)

I repeat: we judge the entire system based on the crazies? That just seems partisan to me.

I think you know my stance on divine faith and personal visions is defined by televangelists and others demanding the check (or credit card) in exchange for eternal salvation.
:lol: well that is why those people are usually considered heretical.
I know of no compelling reason or evidence for believing the first (and therefore the second one as well). And then there is that rather successful endeavor called science and the knowledge produced by it, which coupled with philosophy don't leave any room for religion in my life, except as a nuisance and an inhibitor. Further, there is the experience of living in one of the most deprived, conservative, ignorant, superstitious, religious and 'spiritual' countries in the world (funny how these things go together), and having seen firsthand what that sort of 'thinking' does, and also having religious parents and having to live by their arbitrary rules.

I was attempting to say that your opinion is perfectly valid since you don't hold those two propositions. One cannot be argued into faith.

[evanescence]

Which part of long pig would be similar to a ribeye steak (bone-in)?

Where would the grill be placed in relation to the alter?

Could the red wine be served in 16 ounce stemmed glasses? With refills?

:lol: My husband and I were kicking around the idea of starting our own "non profit" religion.. we would have church services where people would come to listen to awesome music and get high.

Looks like someone did beat us to the punch tho.. :(

http://www.thc-ministry.net/marijuana-religion.html

Anyhow, maybe amazing barbecue and beer could make the difference.

[evanescence]

If this is about coherency, then I have to ask "what is coherent about God in the first place?"

Particularly when our single "viable" account of Him happens to be filled pesky little words like "is." Either we have to work with the Bible, and therefore we are inherently without coherence (DON'T MAKE ME CITE THE SHE-BEARS AGAIN ;) ), or we have to go with "oh, I just have a feeling that someone loves me," or, "oh, I hear Him talking to me;" both of which are fundamental aspects of schizophrenia (again inherently sans coherence).*

CASE IN POINT: I dare you to make sense of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk&feature=player_embedded)

:lol::lol: Thanks, Margot. That made my day.

[The Drunk Guy]

So it's ok to be contradictory and incoherent as long as you don't believe anything? :shrug:

Are you really pointing that banana at my junk? :)

Actually, I was playing with words. Coherent also means 'sticking together.' As in, "All Lutheran churches are coherent." Just being silly.

[Non Sequitur]

Are you really pointing that banana at my junk? :)

Actually, I was playing with words. Coherent also means 'sticking together.' As in, "All Lutheran churches are coherent." Just being silly.

Ah, very sorry to misinterpret you :o