Is Communion a cannibalistic ritual?

[OnceConvinced]

According to Wikipedia: A ritual "is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence."

Christians practice a religious ritual called “Communion�. This is considered very important by most Christians and is usually conducted every Sunday at church. Some even think you can’t possibly be considered a true Christian if you refuse to participate in Communion. It involves eating some bread and drinking some wine (or in many cases fruit juice) and acknowledging Christ’s death on the cross.

Jesus himself ordained this religious ritual:

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me�. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.�

In the standard Protestant Christian church these emblems are considered metaphorical, but still represent the flesh and the blood of Christ and you are expected to consume these. The Catholic church goes one step further and tries to make out that the bread really is Christ’s body and that it is somehow magically transformed.

So the question:
Is Communion a cannibalistic ritual? Please justify your answer.

[Divine Insight]

So the question:
Is Communion a cannibalistic ritual? Please justify your answer.

I wouldn't personally characteristic it as such. The whole thing has always been a metaphor to me. Even when I read Jesus supposedly saying these words I accept them as being meant metaphorically. It's still supposed to be a spiritually meaningful metaphor. However, I have since rejected this whole notion. I don't believe that any actual Jesus ever even said these things. I'm convinced that many things attributed to the man Jesus we actually created as superstitions long after he was dead. I don't personally believe that Jesus had a clue that he was going to be crucified, nor did he consider himself the sacrificial lamb of God.

Of course, whether some guy named Jesus actually said these things or not is a whole other topic. The point is that even as a religious ideal, the idea is that Jesus is being portrayed here to be the "Sacrificial Lamb" of God. And even that would be a metaphor of sorts. After all why should God need to sacrifice a lamb unto himself?

But the idea that Jesus is a standing in as a metaphorical sacrificial lamb then this idea that something should symbolically be eaten as his body and blood would fit in to that traditional superstition. But even then I think the idea is that it's supposed to be a metaphor, although I too have heard that the Catholics take is as a very serious metaphor to the point where they imagine the bread and wine actually transforming to become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. When it's taken to that extreme I suppose it could be seen as cannibalistic.

I don't personally have a problem with this hole metaphorical spiritual ideal. But what I do have a problem with is the very idea of Jesus being an actual sacrificial lamb of God. That's the part that makes no sense to me. This would be a lamb that was given by God but not ceremonially sacrificed in a ritual to request that God atone the sins of men. On the contrary Jesus was in no way sacrificed as a sacrificial lamb to God. On the contrary he was brutally beaten, disgraced and crucified in a horrible fashion on charges of blaspheme. That's hardly a ceremony for a sacrificial lamb being sacrificed to God.

And the idea of God sacrifice Jesus unto himself via this angry mob who believe that they were condemning him on grounds of blaspheme makes absolutely no sense at all.

For me, these superstitious rumors grew over time and were actually constructed and put together in a very poorly-thought-out manner. There is nothing in these rumors of Jesus that even remotely hints to me that it was the design of any all-wise God. Surely and all-wise God could have done better than this?

Is there really any reason why an all-wise God should expect any intelligent person to buy into these stories? I can't imagine why anyone should buy into them. But obviously many people do think that this stuff makes some kind of sense. Why they do is beyond me.

The idea that a God would have his very own corrupt priests call for the brutal execution of his only begotten son and expect everyone else to see this as a ceremonial sacrificial lamb makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Why in the world are this God's own priest so corrupt in the first place? Why couldn't this omnipotent God keep his own religion, temples, and priests in order?

That things that I am being asked to believe about this God are simply beyond absurd.

The idea of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of mankind makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Period. Cannibalism or not.

As I pointed out in another thread. This God didn't even think that Jesus' own disciples who were with Jesus on a daily basis would be sufficiently convinced that Jesus was his only begotten son. The Gospels prove this to us when they claim that God felt that he needed to speak from a cloud confirming to the disciples that Jesus was indeed his son.

Yet here we are being asked to believe this utter nonsense as nothing more than 2000 year-old rumors. We never met Jesus in person, we never heard God speak from a cloud, yet we will supposedly be condemned if we fail to believe this utter nonsense.

To me that's proof positive that this religion is nothing more than a man-made superstitious cult.

As a metaphorical sacrificial lamb, or as a cannibalized demigod. It makes no difference to me. These are both utterly absurd notions. And there is no reason to believe in this stuff. Yet supposedly we will be damned if we fail to believe that Jesus was the son of God.

It's clearly a false mythology. There can be no doubt about it.

[bluethread]

I would say that the RCC ritual of communion could be seen that way. However, the Pesach Seder officiated by Yeshua prior to His death, from which it is derived, is not.

[OnceConvinced]

I agree that there is a metaphorical aspect to this, but even though it is metaphorical and there is actually no real cannibalism going on, it still seems to me to very much be a cannibalistic ritual as the people partaking are imagining that they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Being Born again is also kind of metaphorical ritual because you're not actually really being born again. At least not physically. For that matter nobody can even prove there's anything spiritual going on.

Water baptism is another religious ritual where you are dunked under water and it symbolizes being cleansed born anew. Once again pretty much a metaphorical thing.

Does something metaphorical exclude it from being considered the same as any ritual where something non-metaphorical is happening?

If being born again and being baptized is considered a spiritual renewing, would not the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine be spiritual cannibalism?

[OnceConvinced]

I would say that the RCC ritual of communion could be seen that way. However, the Pesach Seder officiated by Yeshua prior to His death, from which it is derived, is not.

Why not? Jesus said the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. Even if you said this was metaphorical and not real cannibalism, is it not metaphorical cannibalism?

[OnceConvinced]

I wouldn't personally characteristic it as such. The whole thing has always been a metaphor to me.

OK, so it's metaphorical cannibalism then. What we have here is a metaphorical cannibalistic ritual.

I personally don't see why we need to include the word "metaphorical" though because many religious rituals contain symbolic acts, like lighting candles and things like that.

[Divine Insight]

I wouldn't personally characteristic it as such. The whole thing has always been a metaphor to me.

OK, so it's metaphorical cannibalism then. What we have here is a metaphorical cannibalistic ritual.

I personally don't see why we need to include the word "metaphorical" though because many religious rituals contain symbolic acts, like lighting candles and things like that.

Well, in terms of pure mythology we can say that Jesus was playing the role of a metaphorical "lamb", and so the metaphors of eating his body and flesh are supposed to also be done thinking of Jesus as a metaphorical "lamb"

But even so the whole religion is superstitious nonsense.

And besides, in the case of Jesus, it wouldn't have really been a sacrificial lamb anyway, it would have been a sacrificial scapegoat. But obviously that kind of metaphorical terminology isn't going to loan itself to respect. So the term "sacrificial lamb" was used instead. It sounds more cuddly and innocent.

It's just like it's ok to call Jesus "The only begotten virgin-born Son of God"

But calling him a demigod is considered to be derogatory. Even though both labels mean precisely the same thing.

Christianity as a religious dogma is careful to try to word things in a favorable light.

This is why it's ok to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, but it's not ok to cannibalize Jesus. Eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood is considered to be a highly reverent ritual. Cannibalizing Christ would be disgusting.

It's all in the interest of diplomatic and "politically correct" religious propaganda.

You don't canniblaize the Christ. You reverently drink his blood and eat his flesh. Preferable wiping your lips with a napkin afterward. And no burping please.

You've got to give the Hebrews credit for one thing. They did write some great material for comedians. George Carlin made an entire career off this mythology.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The idea of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of mankind makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Period. Cannibalism or not.

How come you seem unable to observe the sacrificial nature of life?

Since life has that nature (we will debate it) then it is not absurd to find God using sacrifice for life (to save us).

One could say that sacrificing for one self is the difference between being good or bad.

[Divine Insight]

How come you seem unable to observe the sacrificial nature of life?

I have no clue what you mean when you say the sacrificial nature of life. Especially in terms of penal substitution. I don't see any natural penal substitution in life.

Since life has that nature (we will debate it) then it is not absurd to find God using sacrifice for life (to save us).

Again, you'll need to be crystal clear on what you mean by "sacrificial nature of life", and how that would relate to God who has his own son crucified by humans as a sacrifice unto HIM so that he can refrain from unleashing HIS wrath on humans.

One could say that sacrificing for one self is the difference between being good or bad.

One can say anything they like. But making a rational case for it is another thing entirely. I personally don't feel that I need to sacrifice anything to no be "bad".

I have no desire to be "bad" so why should I need to sacrifice anything to not be bad?

Also, if your talking about things like "sacrificing" eating delicious foods for the sake of maintaining good health or things along those lines I would totally disagree with you that those types of "sacrifices" are the same as a sacrifice associated with penal substitution.

In fact, many Christians often use the analogy of solider who loses his life during a war as an example of a sacrifice similar to what Jesus supposedly did. But that is far from a valid analogy. A solider doesn't sacrifice his life as "penal substitution" for his home culture. Also a solider fights a war in the first place because there are real enemies that he, being a mere mortal man, cannot defeat in any other way.

But none of these apply to a God. Why should a God need to sacrifice his own Son to appease himself so he can refrain from unleashing his very own wrath against mankind?

Who is the enemy that God needed to defeat? And if there was an enemy that God needed to defeat why did God need to resort to such an extremely desperate act of sacrificing his own son to defeat that enemy? That enemy must have been one whale of a serious threat to God.

I will gladly debate anyone on topic of what any omnipotent omniscient God should even need to do something so desperate as to "sacrifice" his only begotten Son to save mankind from his own judgmental wrath.

If you want to debate me on that topic you better be well prepared because you're going to need to make a seriously convincing case for why a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God would need to sacrifice anything to save mankind from his very own wrath.

And is this the same unchanging God who had previously drown humanity out in a Great Flood and was sorry he ever created them?

Now he loves humanity so much he's willing to give is only begotten son as a sacrifice to appease his own wrath?

Good luck if you're going to claim to make any sense out of that at all.

If you think you can, you are more than welcome to have a go at it. But I've heard all the popular apologies already. And none of them even come remotely close to cutting it. So I hope you have a whole new approach.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Fair enough. The sacrificial nature of life:

- A parent/guardian/society raises a child sacrificing many things for the child.

- A person trains or studies hard, sacrificing other choices they would prefer to make to gain a skill. Another person sacrifices their time and effort to coach them.

- Every time we eat, something else dies for us.

and how that would relate to God who has his own son crucified by humans as a sacrifice unto HIM so that he can refrain from unleashing HIS wrath on humans.

It has no relation to your straw man of God. God is Jesus.

It relates to God's sacrifice because if you in some way can note the sacrificial nature of life then you must admit that using sacrifice isn't as absurd as you make it sound.

I personally don't feel that I need to sacrifice anything to no be "bad".

I was saying the opposite, we can detect bad people by how they treat others, are they sacrificing for them or sacrificing them. I think it can ring true enough for you.

The point I wish to make here is that there is an observed sacrificial nature in life.

Your own soldier analogy points to it.

Do you see it or deny it? I want to be as fair as possible to you by saying that it is not scientifically provable that 'life is sacrificial' but it does seem observational but it might be like looking at a cloud and seeing a face, which is basically what atheists think religious types are doing. So do you see the 'face in the cloud' or not?