The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: The Bloody Gospel

Re: The Bloody Gospel
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Friday, May 23 2008, 5:02:40 (CEST)
from 71.116.96.214 - pool-71-116-96-214.snfcca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Mosulini wrote:
>Jesus preached love and forgiveness to enemies, to uphold the ten commmandments, honor parents, chastity, charity, abandon materialism... and oh yes, to eat human flesh and drink blood??? That doesn't make sense and clearly inconsistent.

...if you're going to subject "the word of god" to what is "reasonable" and what "makes sense"..then it seems to me you are passing judgement on the word of God...you're setting yourself up as the final judge of what Jesus meant. That seems a little strange don't you think? Why have a God then if humans are going to pass judgement on him? Does he just suggest things? Leaving it up to us to choose what we like?

...besides, the things you cite are common to all religions...the discussion was about what it is that makes Christianity unique: what does Christianity advocate that no other religion does...the answer is, clearly, cannibalism etc. No one is asking you to approve or disapprove...you may think it's allegorical, that's your opinion....we weren't talking about the liklihood of Jesus really MEANING it...the discussion was about what Christians BELIEVE...the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches believe in the ACTUAL words of Jesus, that also isn't my opinion...THEY say it..as shown by the quote from Jesus in the Bible. I understand you don't LIKE it..but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus MEANT what he said....and church officials representing and teching millions of Christians for over 1500 years believed in its literal truth, not alligorical...these are much later points of view but not held by most Christians....as the letter from the Cardinal indicated..it is Church teaching that Jesus actually meant REAL flesh and blood...I don;t understand your hesitation to admit that this is indeed what is being taught in Christianity.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I can't understand why you can't recognize that the CHURCH teaches this doctrine...not ALL of the churches, who hardly agree on ANYTHING...but it is indeed the teaching of Jesus and his church...what we now call the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox church...why can't you people admit such an obvious fact? You obviously have OPINIONS...so do I. But why is it so hard to admit the FACTS, the facts as they appear to millions of Christians AND Jesus...as stated in the Bible. There is no ambiguity at all in the words of Jesus...read them, read them as Jesus MEANT them, not as you would prefer to think he meant.

Of course you can be horrified or wish to believe that he couldn't have meant that. I feel the same way. But my concern is, first, to prove to Minime that there is indeed a significant way in which Christianity is very different from other modern religions...and I think the teaching of cannibalism proves the point. The NEXT thing to do is react on a personal level. You believe it's an allegory...fine. But Jesus DIDN'T, if we are to believe that ANY of the Bible contains the actual words of Jesus. It seems to be your opinion that people can decide for themselves when Jesus meant what he said and when he was speaking in symbols...okay, you're entitiled. My opinion on that is that people can't interpret God...if they give themselves that right then anyone can believe anything he wants and tell others that HE knows what God "really meant". My opinion is that humans can't interpret God...especially when he does NOT speak in symbols, but says, flat out, "eat me".

I say again that you misunderstand the meaning of allegory...read the definition again. A wild storm can be an allegory for human emotions, which are also wild..or a fleet footed deer can be a "sytmbol" for a nimble and fast moving mind...or a river can be a "metaphor" for Life, which also flows and moves and never stands still...in these cases there is a link between what the person is trying to say, directly, and the image he uses to suggest it in the reader's mind.

In the case of cannibalism...what kind of "symbol" is that? Can you imagine using "murder" as a symbol of "love"? Isn't that a horible and clumsy "allegory" for something as wonderful as love? Well, that's the problem I see in this. Cannibalism is a CRIME...and there can be no good purpose served by using a crime and a disgusting one at that, as any kind of symbol or allegory for a person's love for Jesus and his "oneness" with Jesus, by EATING HIM!

I just don't see the difficulty you're having with this...remember, we're NOT discussing approving or disapproving of this practise...the issue was Does Christianity BELIEVE this to be LITERAL? Not "fake" meat but REAL human meat...and the answer is "yes"..as the Bible itself and the words of Jesus plus the high officials of the churches shows..."yes"...this doctrine HAS BEEN TAUGHT...that's all we're talking about...how can anyone argue that it has NOT?

In any discussion it helps immensely to define terms, and then stick to the subject...not to interject extraneous material or lead us off on a tangent...if you want to do that NEXT, fine...but first things first, and the first issue was not, "is it right"...or "is it an allegory"...it is; "does the church teach this doctrine and does Jesus teach this doctrine?" That was the question raised...and from evidence produced, from the Bible, from St John, from Jesus himself, and from church officials, all of it pointed to an affirmative..."Yes"...these people and institutions DID and DO teach these things.

For God's sake all you have to do is ASK THEM. Never mind what YOU think of it, or what I think of it...ask THEM what THEY THINK they're doing...and they'll tell you..."it is REAL flesh"...and they DO teach it, else millions of people today wouldn't KNOW IT and DO IT. That's all we started out discussing.

Next, we can offer our opinions about it...but surely there is no good reason to say it never happened, or that Jesus couldn't have meant it...because he DID say it and his words emphasize that he DID mean it. Once that
is established by all means let's give our opinions..but not before and not to sidetrack us.
>
>The bible is entirely allegorical, and most churches treat it as such, and this is a basic assumption upon which most of the Christian doctrines rest.
>
>So rebirth is symbollic because it's physically impossible,

...not just that. Clearly Jesus didn't mean crawling up your dead mother's womb...because that would only be a second, physical rebirth..and clearly he was talking about a spiritual birth....and for a spiritual brith there's no reason to crawl up your mother to have what would be, at best, a very poor approximation of your first birth...and since he was speaking of something sublime, something spiritual, it would hardly satisfy.

but since it's possible to eat flesh, then it couldn't be interpreted but literally?

...but there is no "interpretation"...not at least by Jesus himself, or in the Bible, or as taught to millions of Christians for the last 1500 years. This is where we're losing each other. You're interpreting NOW, in time. But the words of Jesus on this subject afford no room for "interpretation"...again, you may disagree, but millions of Christians believe the words were ACTUAL...read the quote by Jesus, he makes a point of making it clear that he means ACTUAL flesh...read them. And in case there is any doubt, and the Cardinal admits that he's written the letter BECAUSE there is doubt among Christians, he reaffirms that it is real flesh and real blood that Jesus meant. Remember, we're not talking about what YOU or I think about it...we're talking about what millions of Christians have believed and taught for centuries...and from church doctrine and the words of Jesus in the Bible, we see great care taken to clarify that Christians are talking about REAL flesh and REAL blood.

...once we accept that THEY believed and still believe this...we can give our own opinions about it.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 8671
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_The_Bloody_Gospel-1FZv.Njtw.QUOTE
Ua-cpu: x86
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9