<p>It is not gratuitous, it is a deliberate assertion that some religious claims are so far beyond reasonable that I really do not think ‘belief’ is the right word.</p>
<p>In other words I do not believe that people really believe those sorts of things. But you can choose to act as if you believe it.</p>
<p>To simplify, it is NOT ‘literally the body literally the sacred blood of Christ’. As evidenced by the fact that it still makes you drunk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I see where you’re coming from now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope that’s not it. I mean, if hundreds of millions of people are professing to believe something that they don’t really believe…well, jeez, we humans are truly pathetic and hopeless. I think I’d rather someone believe something ridiculous than claim to believe something ridiculous when they really don’t. I think.</p>
<p>^^^^My interpretation of the original comment was that he was pointing out that it was silly to believe that giving consecrated wine to children somehow negated the fact that the wine did indeed contain alcohol. The post to which he responded seemed to imply that once the wine is “consecrated,” it is no longer wine, but in fact is the blood of Christ.</p>
<p>Raised as a southern Baptist, we were given grape juice and bread and taught that these became *symbols *of Christ’s blood and body. I never realized that other denominations took it literally until I read this thread.</p>
<p>You’d be amazed at the stuff Catholics take literally. Excuse me, are taught to take literally. But, again, that goes for a lot of religions. Seventy-two virgins, Ahmed? Really? Come on.</p>
<p>I can certainly understand that some folks may find some unfamiliar religious beliefs weird. Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. While they retain their appearance as bread and wine, their “substance” changes into the body and blood. That is why the Eucharist is a Sacrament (or for the Orthodox- mysterion). It is the core mystery of faith. </p>
<p>While many folks don’t believe this, many do.</p>
<p>Nrdsb - I was also raised in Southern Baptist church and we were always told the juice and bread was symbolic. I, too, was surprised to read the Catholics believe it actually is blood and wine. So I learned something here.</p>
<p>I have some respect for the Catholic notion of mysteries. I find it more palatable than some faux-logical explanation that insults the intelligence. Sort of like how I respected The Force until George Lucas came up with all that midi-chlorian garbage. Dude, it’s a mystery, and everyone was fine with that; leave well enough alone.</p>
<p>That’s why Zen Buddhism is my favorite religion. There’s no attempt to explain any of it. It’s all a mystery, every last bit of it. And you don’t even have to believe it. In fact, any conscious attempt to believe it is anathema to the religion itself. I find that to be eminently cool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually it would not be like that at all, because the passover recipes are intended to be symbolic and celebratory.</p>
<p>It would be more equivalent if anyone claimed that his matzot bread was “literally carried by Moses out of Egypt”.</p>
<p>…well, the recipe was carried out.</p>
<p>And if you have had matzoh for several days running, trust me, it tastes like its thousands of years old.</p>
<p>Stop spoiling the mood with your good-natured humor.</p>
<p>…I’m sorry…I won’t do it again…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Sourced from Wiki)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From a Reform perspective, sure. From an Orthodox perspective? It’s far more than “symbolic and celebratory.” It’s taken as seriously as the Catholics take transubstantiation. It’s a different <em>matter</em> but the <em>concept</em> is taken equally as seriously.</p>
<p>I’m surprised so few people know about transubstantiation. When Martin Luther was mentioned in school, did they just say he was angry at church corruption? No mention of all the ways in which his religious beliefs fundamentally differed from those of the church? I’m just curious, because it seems like the issue of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation was quite central to the Reformation, yet it’s an aspect that’s frequently ignored.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I’m throwing down the gauntlet right here. Right now.</p>
<p>That is, hands down, the funniest post (taken in the context of the thread, of course) that I have ever read, on any message board, ever.</p>
<p>Cheers, ellebud. =)</p>
<p>Thank you! Thank you!!</p>