Zone1 Question for Christians.

[hadit]

The questions are not hard. They are contemptuous, lacking faith in Christ, and the ignorance is overwhelming.

Yes, I am ignorant about how Catholics believe they consume flesh and drink blood but taste only wine and bread. Do you not see that is very perplexing? How would you like the questions to be worded so as not to wound your sensibilities?

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, I am ignorant about how Catholics believe they consume flesh and drink blood but taste only wine and bread. Do you not see that is very perplexing? How would you like the questions to be worded so as not to wound your sensibilities?

Take a look at your final sentence. You think this is about "wounding sensibilities." And that says it all. You throw feces and then complain about "wounding sensibilities." Someone who is truly interested in a practice that began two thousand years ago and extends to the present day, might begin with, "Will you explain transubstantiation to me?"

The fact you want it to be about being able to taste human flesh and human blood is mind blowing. I'm not going there.

 

[hadit]

Take a look at your final sentence. You think this is about "wounding sensibilities." And that says it all. You throw feces and then complain about "wounding sensibilities." Someone who is truly interested in a practice that began two thousand years ago and extends to the present day, might begin with, "Will you explain transubstantiation to me?"

In the evidence you presented, bread and wine were literally turned into flesh and blood, yet this does not happen today. Can you explain why it happened that one time? You said it was not done to test the Lord, which would indicate that it's supposed to happen routinely, yet it doesn't. Are Catholics doing something wrong?

The fact you want it to be about being able to taste human flesh and human blood is mind blowing. I'm not going there.

Never mind, I looked it up for myself. Apparently, the bread and wine literally change into human flesh and blood, but not really. On the outside, the "outward characteristics" remain bread and wine, but on some level, they change into blood and flesh, which can only mean it's not literal flesh and blood, only spiritual. Why didn't you just say it's real flesh and blood, but we only taste bread and wine because it's not a literal and physical change? And, of course, my follow-up question is, "why"? Why would God disguise it if He wanted us to eat literal human flesh and drink literal human blood? I respect someone who says, "I don't know, and I don't understand it, but I believe it". When you give the impression that you understand it, I ask questions, and sometimes those questions lead down uncomfortable paths.

I believe communion is sacred, not something to be taken lightly, but after preparation and self-searching. I do not believe in transubstantiation because I have not gotten a solid, Biblical reason to do so and because of the questions listed above.

 

[Meriweather]

which can only mean it's not literal flesh and blood, only spiritual.

Wrong

 

[hadit]

Wrong

Then the other questions apply:

1. Why don't you taste blood and flesh?
2. Why does God disguise the blood and flesh if He really wants us to consume them as such?

You're not addressing these, only shuddering in revulsion at the idea that you should be tasting blood if it is literally, physically blood, yet you continue to insist it actually is. There's no record that the disciples at the Last Supper recoiled in horror when what they expected to be wine was actually blood, and in the untold billions of times Christians have celebrated communion there is no record that I'm aware of that they even said they actually drank blood, yet here you are insisting that they do. I get it that you have faith, and I get it if you don't understand how God does it, but you're not saying that, you just keep repeating dogma that it simultaneously really is completely, totally, physically is blood but tastes like wine. Does transubstantiation explain it any better than, "Well, it's really flesh and blood, but you can't tell that it is"? We're supposed to discern the body. If that means the literal flesh and blood of Christ, why would God disguise it so someone who didn't know they were receiving communion wouldn't have a clue that was even going on?

 

[Meriweather]

Then the other questions apply:

No

 

[hadit]

No

I get it, you don't want to deal with it.

 

[Meriweather]

I get it, you don't want to deal with it.

Wrong. I refuse to go down your ignorantly constructed rabbit hole. I choose to stay on the Way of Christ, and you have less interest in that than I have in your rabbit hole. I pointed out the path for you to follow. You have declined.

 

[ding]

"27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[h] 31 But if we judged[i] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[j] so that we may not be condemned along with the world."

Paul is saying that communion is not something to be taken lightly, and when people do, they can bring sickness and death on themselves. Is that what we are seeing now because people don't think they're drinking blood and eating raw meat? This should be easy to check. Are Catholics blessed physically because of their belief or is there no difference between the health and longevity of Protestants vs Catholics? The phrase, "discerning the body" is key. It would appear that Catholics believe that means the participant actually thinks they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood, whereas everyone else sees it as either discerning the relationship between the artifacts of communion and the sacrifice Jesus made of His body or discerning the Body of Christ in the solemn occasion and how we treat communion as different from an ordinary meal.

One of your Catholic cohorts told me that the communion bread and wine were actually tested once or twice and found to have been miraculously turned into human muscle tissue and blood. This was before it was consumed, so the inevitable question becomes, are you tasting and smelling actual blood and raw meat when you take communion? If you are not, you're doing something wrong, because you say vehemently that you are. If you are actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood, and as I was told, it miraculously transforms into those from bread and wine before it is consumed, you should smell and taste blood and raw meat. The church should smell like a slaughterhouse, to be indelicate.

Paul said that at one of the churches people were getting drunk during communion. How do you get drunk from drinking human blood? There's no alcohol in it.

This isn't even an attack on you, it's an open question. You could be honest and just say you don't know, but you believe it and don't understand how it all works. Remember, I've been told ad nauseum that Catholics literally eat flesh and drink blood during communion. If that's so and communion artifacts were found to have transformed into flesh and blood before consumption, I ask when you first realized that you weren't drinking wine. When did you first taste blood and do you taste it today?

Keep thinking it's just bread and wine and you will have no life in you.

 

[hadit]

Wrong. I refuse to go down your ignorantly constructed rabbit hole. I choose to stay on the Way of Christ, and you have less interest in that than I have in your rabbit hole. I pointed out the path for you to follow. You have declined.

The Way of Christ is for the Body to be one, but I don't see you as being interesting in that. You seem most interested in the Body becoming monolithically Catholic, not seeking similar beliefs and points of agreement. You didn't answer who had to change their beliefs and practices when the Coptic and Catholic churches unified, and you didn't have to, because based on what I have seen on here, Catholics do not compromise or change beliefs or practices. They only expect everyone else to do so. This, I believe, is because their traditions are so deeply entrenched that it is literally unthinkable to them to consider changing even one.

Now you don't want to, as you say, "Go down a rabbit hole", even though the way you presented transubstantiation leads directly and inevitably that direction. You want to simultaneously claim you are consuming literal flesh and blood but are experiencing only bread and wine. That simply makes no sense, and while I know God works in mysterious ways, I don't think He's giving us literal flesh and blood while disguising it as bread and wine.

 

[hadit]

Keep thinking it's just bread and wine and you will have no life in you.

I've believed so all my life and I KNOW I have the life of Christ in me.

I've asked you before and you refused to answer. When did you become aware that the priest was offering you blood to drink? Can you do better than, "I don't want to go down a rabbit hole"? Why does God disguise the flesh and blood if He wants us to consume it?

 

[Meriweather]

The Way of Christ

I am speaking specifically of the Way of Christ in the Eucharist. You've already dug one rabbit hole. It's a waste of energy to start on another.

 

[hadit]

I am speaking specifically of the Way of Christ in the Eucharist. You've already dug one rabbit hole. It's a waste of energy to start on another.

Okay, you have faith and believe it, that's fine and I admire faith. Is it strong enough to endure testing? Are you also saying that you don't understand how it works? I can respect someone who says, "I don't know how, but I believe anyway". I dig the "rabbit hole" because I'm looking for answers. I don't believe in what you think happens during communion and I'm giving you a chance to say what you believe and convince me from Scripture of what's going on. I don't find the Catholic approach of excluding fellow believers from communion just because they don't believe they're eating and drinking literal human flesh and blood to have a solid basis.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't think He's giving us literal flesh and blood while disguising it as bread and wine.

Precisely, and thus the need to work on those rabbit holes. Once again, I pointed the direction where we could have a meaningful lesson on why Catholics have such great faith in Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. The discussion you are after is a discussion about you and why you say it is not possible. For you it is about, "Listen to me" whereas I was willing for it to be about, "Let's look at scripture and traditions; let's listen to scripture and tradition."

Do you understand why I prefer listening to scripture and tradition over what you think? One must come to the discussion with schooling in scripture and tradition, otherwise one comes with ignorance and what they think, nothing else.

 

[hadit]

Precisely, and thus the need to work on those rabbit holes. Once again, I pointed the direction where we could have a meaningful lesson on why Catholics have such great faith in Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. The discussion you are after is a discussion about you and why you say it is not possible. For you it is about, "Listen to me" whereas I was willing for it to be about, "Let's look at scripture and traditions; let's listen to scripture and tradition."

Do you understand why I prefer listening to scripture and tradition over what you think? One must come to the discussion with schooling in scripture and tradition, otherwise one comes with ignorance and what they think, nothing else.

Okay, I think I have valid questions about transubstantiation, you don't. I feel that you just want to dismiss my questions as irrelevant and irritating. Fine, I'll set them aside for the time being, but be assured that they will not go away, and will need to be addressed in the framework you provide from your perspective. Go ahead, tell me what you understand about transubstantiation and why it is so important that you feel justified in rejecting fellow believers because they think differently.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay, you have faith and believe it, that's fine and I admire faith. Is it strong enough to endure testing? Are you also saying that you don't understand how it works? I can respect someone who says, "I don't know how, but I believe anyway". I dig the "rabbit hole" because I'm looking for answers. I don't believe in what you think happens during communion and I'm giving you a chance to say what you believe and convince me from Scripture of what's going on. I don't find the Catholic approach of excluding fellow believers from communion just because they don't believe they're eating and drinking literal human flesh and blood to have a solid basis.

One must have learning in scripture and tradition to understand how it works. I have that, but you do not, and that is not an ignorance I can overcome when you are determined to be centered on how YOU think it works (or should work) and what YOU think.

As I've said several times now. You have no interest in Transubstantiation of the Eucharist. What you want is a platform to proclaim what YOU believe and what YOU think.

There are no answers down rabbit holes. The answers lie in scripture and tradition. You clearly don't want those answers, and hence your rabbit holes. And I won't go there.

 

[hadit]

One must have learning in scripture and tradition to understand how it works. I have that, but you do not, and that is not an ignorance I can overcome when you are determined to be centered on how YOU think it works (or should work) and what YOU think.

As I've said several times now. You have no interest in Transubstantiation of the Eucharist. What you want is a platform to proclaim what YOU believe and what YOU think.

There are no answers down rabbit holes. The answers lie in scripture and tradition. You clearly don't want those answers, and hence your rabbit holes. And I won't go there.

I gave you the chance and you decided to not participate. I think you would be surprised at what I understand about Scripture, but you insist on denigrating my knowledge, just as you insisted on insulting my wife instead of understanding her perspective.

Note I did not say "tradition", because I know that's where you're going to go, and consider tradition to have the same level of authority as Scripture. If you did not, you would not exclude fellow believers from communion just for having a different belief.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay, I think I have valid questions about transubstantiation

You don't have valid questions. Your questions spring from ignorance. I cannot teach pre-algebra to one who cannot add and subtract.

 

[hadit]

You don't have valid questions. Your questions spring from ignorance. I cannot teach pre-algebra to one who cannot add and subtract.

If you cannot explain your position on transubstantiation without referencing Catholic traditions, how can you maintain it is a Biblically blessed viewpoint? If your position is, "You're not going to understand it because you're not Catholic", how can you maintain it is something that Jesus taught and wants us to draw lines in the sand about?

 

[Meriweather]

Go ahead, tell me what you understand about transubstantiation and why it is so important that you feel justified in rejecting fellow believers because they think differently.

Again the contempt and patronizing. Again, I pass.

I've already explained several times that for those who step forward to receive the Eucharist--the body, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ--without belief are acting out a lie and a deception. You may not mind putting yourself and/or your wife is such a position, but the Church is not going to assist anyone in proclaiming and acting out a lie and a deception that they do believe they are receiving the body and blood of Christ when they hold no such belief. Why believe it is important that the Catholic Church allow non-believers act out this lie/deception?