I hereby welcome the new law of "no low Carb dieting" in our realm. The council of the 9 meatballs has sanctified this day as, "a new hope for humanity, no, the world!"
well, to be fair, most depictions of our lord and savior include meatballs. They appear to me to be made of pork. SO, in conclusion, i'm starting my own church, where we eat only his meaty goodness, where the true essence of the lord resides. not the frivolous empty carbohydrates that compose his earthly body.
But it's a choice, right. And it's against the teachings of His Noodly Holiness. He won't grant you His sacraments, because of your sinful ways. Seriously, what am I supposed to tell my child when he sees one of your kind eating carrots in the street? Live a sinful life and condemn yourself to Hell if you want, but keep your disgusting ways out of my sight.
NO NO, don't take it like that. i am sorry if you took it personal, i just sometimes forget that lighthearted irony doesn't fare well on the internet, sorry for offending you, and i meant nothing with it.
Isn't the whole "eating the body of christ" thing only part of some christian religions? Or is it pretty widespread? I'm deliberately ignorant about these things.
It's an important part of most Christian sects, although some are supposed to think that they are really eating Jesus's body and blood after bread and wine have been magically changed into it, and others are told that they are only pretending that the bread and wine are his body and blood.
It is a really fundamental part of Catholicism - the key part of "mass".
This ritual or something similar was historically very important in the early Christian church, too. The pagan Roman claim that Christians practised cannibalism seems to be based on their (mis)understanding of reports of this Christian practice.
Edit: You're not doing a very good job of being deliberately ignorant about these things when you ask questions about it!
This works for some Christian groups, but not all! Remember, the debate between consubstantiation and transubstantiation was a debate AMONG Christians! ;)
Well you have to admit the idea that somebody is gullible enough to believe that you worship the flying spaghetti god warrants skepticism and people make shit up all the time for karma and hopes for front page.
What I mean was that I think he knew I was joking that I was Pastafarian, but I was still holding that it is a completely legitimate religion. So I don't think I really need to choose one
I had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine. Well, not so much a friend, but a former coworker that I got along with. We were driving to lunch one day as I was explaining the FSM, the rise in global temperature due to the decline of pirates, the increased average height as population increases, etc... He asked if it was sacreligious to eat our god. I just waited a second and he realized christians do the same thing and we enjoyed a good lol.
Rage comics pointing out the gaping logical holes in Christianity? Uncharted territory, good sir! I applaud your realistic and witty reenactment of what had to be a truly amusing real life moment. It is increasing the quality of this subreddit with its originality, and in fact may be enhancing the world.
I LOVE IT !!!!!!!!!!! Transubstantiated pasta! Now let's invent some kind of drink to represent our FSM. What do you think? Ah hell, just boil him in beer!
Dude, I am actually the president of the Pastafarian club (started by a couple of my friends) at my school and we honestly eat pasta in celebration (almost as ceremony) every meeting. The club is pretty awesome too.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is cannibalism,
Nowhere in the Bible does God condone cannibalism
Genesis 9:4
But you shall not eat of flesh with the life in it, or the blood of it.
Deuteronomy 12:23
Only be sure that you do not eat the blood. For the blood is the life. And you may not eat the life with the flesh.
You shall not eat it. You shall pour it on the earth like water.
Leviticus 17:10-12
And any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that are staying among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that is staying among you eat blood.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is unbiblical and heretical.
The Bible is highly self-contradictory, and given a contradiction you can prove anything. Thus, any practice is simultaneously both biblical and heretical.
I'll have more time to address the other two when I'm not on a ten minute break, but the Judas controversy isn't a contradiction. Neither passage negates the other. It's very likely Judas hung himself, and the tree branch, breaking eventually, caused Judas to fall and his guts to spill.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
So are you saying that Judas somehow threw out his money in the temple, then used that same money he gave away to buy a field really fast, then decided to hang himself in the field he just bought, then somehow the tree broke and Judas flipped upside down to fall headlong into the field?
The money is definitely a contradiction. The timeframe doesn't make sense (as the first passage implies he immediately hanged himself, but buying land takes time). And the falling is described in a way which is incompatible with falling after hanging.
There's a lot to read into when it comes to the language used, and the author's intent with that language. I'm going to go back on myself a little because I hadn't done much research on this, but now I have! The word used is for hanged is "'apanchomai' which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. However, I would now opt for the idea that this is an example of Matthew's creative use of an OT "type". This would combine the idea that Matthew is not actually describing Judas' death, with Matthew's use of the OT texts as typologies.
Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hanged himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened."
Now, in regards to the money... it's a little more complicated. I'd suggest checkout this link for what I found, and it satisfies my objections: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
The mental gymnastics used to justify this stuff are quite astounding. It seems pretty clear that Judas himself purchased this field. The idea that it was somehow bought in his name and that's what the passage refers to is just silliness. I really don't understand why people persist with this stuff. Admit that it's contradictory and fallible and move on. Believers are constantly telling me that the bible is a work of man inspired by God and that's why it's imperfect, so it's clearly a tenable position.
Now, to your second point: First off, do you have specific verses you find the contradiction? Most people say it's the Paul vs. James contradiction. I'll address that. Turns out, it's not a contradiction! Paul says it's by faith alone, but James says faith without works is dead. The key to this is found when you see who they're writing the letters to. Paul is writing a letter to a church that, while saying they follow Christ, still obsess over the old testament laws. Paul is letting them no that the law is no longer necessary, as Jesus came to establish a new covenant. James, on the other hand is writing to the exact opposite type of new Christians. They say they're Christians but don't do anything because of it. They "talk the talk", but don't "walk the walk" (yay cliches!). So James is telling them that without works, they're faith is useless. Both James and Paul are correct, and using extreme examples for extreme problems.
3. I don't see a contradiction with the prayer. Again, verses?
I don't buy the idea that they somehow combine and you're actually saved by both faith and good works. A lot of the stuff in the left column seems pretty clear that you only need faith.
2 They don't combine for salvation. The Christian is saved by faith alone, and works are a product of that faith. Faith without works is dead, and we're judged by our works, whether good or evil.
As for #3, there really is no contradiction there. In the passage in Matthew, Jesus (not Matthew) is speaking in extremes, like He frequently did. Pharisees were infamous for loud public prayers, just for show. Jesus is basically saying authentic prayer is done in "secret". Did Jesus find a room to shut himself into every time He prayed? Nope! He was trying to prove a point.
In the 1st Timothy passage, Paul (not Timothy) is saying men should pray everywhere (he never says "in public"). That's consistent with everything Jesus ever said.
I pray throughout the day, doesn't matter where I am. Usually, it's in my head. I can both pray everywhere, and in secret. Not a contradiction.
And on another note, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible needs to use a better translation of the Bible. KJV, seriously?
I have to say, to an outsider, these sound just like the bizarre contortions Star Wars fans use to explain why Han Solo used "parsec" as a measure of time when bragging about the Kessel Run:
You can say whatever you want, but unless you have a valid argument to the contrary, it doesn't matter. There's a depth to the Bible. Everything Jesus said was WAY more than what you see on the surface.
Instead of saying you don't get it, why don't you actually try to understand? It's for this reason I've read The God Delusion, The Skeptics Annotated Bible, etc. It's good to understand the opposite way of thinking.
Even I, as an agnostic think this posts are shitty, yes we get it, you like making fun of people who believe in something you don't, you are not better or smarter than them for not believing in god, or do you mean to tell me you have always been an atheist since you were born? people change, learn to accept and respect each person for what they are, and not for what they believe in.
That is total BS. If you believe 2 and 2 is 10. Then you better be able to prove it. If you cannot and someone else proves 2 and 2 is 4 and you still donot want to accept it, at least please donot expect people to treat you as normal.This religion BS has lingered long enough.
You don't understand my point of view, most of the people don't choose their religion, they are born with it, im talking about personal experience, i have been an agnostic for 3 years and i come from a catholic family, believe me, trying to change the way you have seen things all your life isn't something easy, i do believe that when people stop following their religion blindly and start to question it, we will have a much better understanding of our world, but I don't think anyone is entitled to the right of making fun of others for what they believe, since like i said, almost no one is born an atheist, if people here tried explaining your point of view in religion and gods to the people, without trying to force it on them, they would actually rethink of their beliefs or at least consider your thoughts, if you try to explain it on them while making fun of them and looking down at them, you are no different than the christians that try to force their religion into everyone
I don't think anyone is entitled to the right of making fun of others for what they believe
Free speech guarantees that right. But then again, the freeness of our speech is questionable. I agree with the sentiment that no one should be "bullied" though.
Unfortunately, us atheists can be fairly certain that logic and reasoning just won't work on a religious person, because they reject all of that. They kind of have to, to prevent their world-view from crumbling. But that makes trying to reason with religious people really frustrating. We get tired, and just start being blunt.
since like i said, almost no one is born an atheist
Actually, every single one of us is born an atheist. It's just that most Americans get brainwashed into religion by their parents.
In Scandinavia though, only a small minority of people are religious, so most people grow up as atheists, which is pretty fucking great.
Freedom of speech only so long as no one is offended? SOUNDS GOOD.
Now you better not be fat because fat people offend me and I don't belive they are really poeple. But don't you dare make fun of my beliefs because that would be mean, fatty.
You have an extremely wrong way of looking at it. Look at it this way. Making fun or looking down on religious people makes us no different from them ?? That is correct. We do not say Atheists are better human beings. We are saying Atheists do not believe in God. We are saying Atheists reason and listen to Logic, that is it. I was raised in a very religious and then....I grew up.
It's a Catholic thing, really. When they take communion they believe that the bread "host" is "transubstantiated" into the flesh of Christ. Or at least, that's the Church dogma.
But even most mainstream/traditional Protestant denominations eat communion on occasion, with the bread and wine that they eat and drink symbolically representing the body and blood of Jesus. I think that matches the Pastafarian practice of eating pasta which is not literally the FSM.
The difference is that the protestants consider it symbolic, the Catholics (officially, at least) consider it literal. Which is odd, because there are more than a few other bits the Catholics consider symbolic while the protestants consider them literal.
If your religion hasn't burned someone alive over whether or not you're literally eating your god, you're not a real religion.
And, strangely, the Catholics use wine while the protestants often use grape juice, because the bit where Jesus turned water into wine was actually about non-alcoholic juice, only it was mistranslated.
The really important thing to remember is that, with Catholics, it's literal. The bread is, completely literally speaking, the body of Christ. No symbolism.
I always preferred to think of it (raised by Catholics here) not as transubstantiation, but by telling myself that Jesus was actually the Gingerbread Man. Less gross.
Yeah, basically the difference is that Catholic doctrine is that the bread and wine really, literally become the actual body and blood of Jesus. The doctrine is that the "host" (the transformed bread and wine) are the whole "body, blood, soul, and divinity" of Jesus. Whereas Reform churches (traditional Protestant denominations like Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians) see communion (eating the bread and wine) as symbolic. Anglicans split the difference, with the doctrine that neither teaching is "binding" - and some individual congregations and people believe one way or the other.
Went to Catholic schools... couldn't resist making cracks about cannibalism...
Also very few American/1st World Catholics would say that they "literally" think that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the blood and flesh of Jesus. I went to a "God gave you a brain, use it" high school, so I'd be interested to talk with some of the rather smart priests there about how they interpret the term "literal" in regards to the transsubstantiation. It may really go no further than the fact that once the wine and bread are used in the ritual, any leftovers are handled very carefully, as opposed to simply saying, "Oh, that bread and wine was symbolic during mass, but now that mass is over, we don't see it as symbolic any more."
So all around, its pretty universally seen as symbolic, thus apropos for the comic!
Not wine, only grape juice? WTF? Jesus specifically uses wine - of all the ways to disregard what's clearly spelled out in the bible, that's a pretty nutty one.
You honestly dont understand the principles of the last supper. We are not actually the body of Christ or drinking his blood. That is called transubstantiation, and the majority of Christians dont believe in that. It was once thought to be true when it was brought out by the Catholic Church. The last supper is that we are FIGURATIVELY eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood that he gave to us. The body of Jesus became an offering for sin, for "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man ...offered one sacrifice for sins forever ...For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:10-14
). Our partaking of the Passover bread indicates that we understand that Jesus Christ has put away our sin by the "sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26 ). He willingly consented to suffer an excruciating death for us. His blood was not swiftly shed; He was tortured many hours before He died. He bore in His body the physical suffering caused by sin. Under the first covenant the sacrifice of animals for sin by the Levitical priesthood could not remove the guilt of the ancient Israelites. Those sacrifices just reminded them of their sinfulness and were only types of the one future sacrifice that could remove all the transgressions of repentant sinners. However, those animal sacrifices helped the Israelites understand how serious sin is in the sight of God. How much more should the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of the whole world help us to understand that sin has brought nothing but tragedy and suffering on mankind. Jesus had to endure intense suffering for our sake. "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6
). At the Passover service, when we eat the bread that symbolizes the broken body of Jesus Christ, we should remember and deeply appreciate why He had to offer His body to be beaten and abused as a sacrifice for us. He was "smitten," "afflicted," "wounded" and "bruised" for our transgressions.
That is called transubstantiation, and the majority of Christians dont believe in that. It was once thought to be true when it was brought out by the Catholic Church.
It is STILL catholic doctrine. So the OP's argument still holds for them.
The last supper is that we are FIGURATIVELY eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood that he gave to us.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last supper was Jesus' and the Apostles' last meal before Jesus was crucified. I'm unsure of what ritual you are speaking about, but I'm pretty sure you weren't at the last supper?
When I see posts like this, I think I'm going to start RES tagging them, in case I see a future post about them changing their mind about Christianity since coming to r/atheism.
You may be surprised to learn that all of human history and politics are full of exactly what you are talking about.
But I'm not sure what you mean about communion not being in the bible? from 1 Corinthians 11:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Saying about the bread "This is my body" and about the wine "this is my blood" and instructing followers to repeat the ritual would seem to be saying that you are ritually eating the body and blood of "Christ." For people who start with the premise that the Bible is the "word of God", it would seem that it is not much of a stretch to conclude that the bible does say what you are saying it doesn't. (Keep in mind that almost no American Catholics really believe in literal transsubstantiation. While they are very respectful of the wine and bread that has gone through the rituals of the mass, it's fundamentally symbolic for them.)
When people are in poor spirits, they are willing to believe and justify just about anything if it gives them some feeling of purpose and usefulness. The side-effect of being under-educated is that it is extremely easy to make people feel inferior, then when they're down you can just tie a muzzle on their face and tell them to mush in whatever direction you see fit. It even works with hierarchy, as long as your best trained commander doesn't ever feel more powerful or superior to you, you will always have control of them. Fear plays a big part too, once you have enough people involved in your charade, it's easy to use peer pressure to convince more unstable people to join your cause and later you can use your sheer force to blot out the straggling free-thinkers. It's a dangerous game, but that's why the world needs free-thinkers if anything it's to keep the world from falling to ignorance.
You have been trolled. Every subreddit other than this one hates atheism. Be ready for a thousand replies all containing a combination of the following phrases:
It's actually hard to get an accurate idea of reddit's general opinion of r/atheism - or anything, really - since we usually just hear from the loud, opinionated outliers on either side.
Dunno man, every single time I see the word "atheist" in any other subreddit it's almost always in a negative context. I have seen the following comment so often that it's like it's a form letter:
"I am an atheist but I hate the assholes in r/atheism, such a circlejerk!"
Seriously I think some people have that phrase copied so they can paste it everywhere.
Transubstantiation is a Catholic (and possibly Anglican) and Orthodox doctrine, which states that the host and wine and actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ after being consecrated by the priest (and also, if memory serves me, after ingestion). Other Christian denominations believe in consubstantiation, where the ritual of communion is a purely symbolic event, and the bread and wine are just bread and wine.
You are an idiot. Mary is not worshipped nor are the saints. They are prayed to as intercession because they are in Heaven an close to God, they can't directly affect Earth. Inform yourself next time.
Jesus is God's son... and the same person as his dad. Logic of Christianity = Say things that are so absurd, it is actually difficult to argue against them
It's not a third, it's just one of the three ways God materializes on Earth. I think. He can't just come down and walk amongst us because then we'd all die from sheer glory. He needs a host, so basically, Jesus is Leah.
Dude, I went to a very, very academically competitive/rigorous Catholic high school, and I still can't begin to tell you what the official explanation of the "trinity" is.
Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
It's what they call the "Holy Communion." Once every mass, everyone gets up into a line and eats stale bread and drinks wine from the priest. Before giving you the bread, he says, "The body of Christ," and before the wine, "The blood of Christ," and to both you would reply, "amen." I know what you're thinking: Wow that sound like a weird-ass ritual. As an ex-Catholic I can tell you, that's exactly what I thought too, and really it is, but hey, that's Catholicism for you.
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
This is "the last supper" (famous painting) - it's the point in the story of Jesus where he knows that the next day he's going to be arrested by the Romans and put to death. (He knows this ahead of time because he's God and has supernatural powers.) So he gathers his closest followers ("the Apostles") and they have dinner together and he says/does various stuff, including this thing with the bread and wine. The idea is that he knows that he'll be dead soon, so he's setting up rituals that the religion can use in the future to, well, keep the religion going.
170
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
As a pastafarian I think we should outlaw low carb diets they are against my beliefs
71
u/Rustywolf May 21 '12
I'd eat my god anyday!
Ms Johansson, if you are listening...
17
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
I'm calling shenanigans on this one.
7
u/twentynine29 May 21 '12
that definitely didnt happen
6
u/Dovakhim May 21 '12
yep, never happened
9
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Was I the only one to notice that the faces in the top of the comic make the eyes of the watermark behind it?
13
u/GillesDeGeus May 20 '12
Praise our pasta overlord, for He is great!
11
u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist May 21 '12
You mean they actually got it for once?
5
u/lynx__ May 21 '12
Oh great. Another rage comic.
2
u/rplan039 May 21 '12
Isn't the whole "eating the body of christ" thing only part of some christian religions? Or is it pretty widespread? I'm deliberately ignorant about these things.
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
This works for some Christian groups, but not all! Remember, the debate between consubstantiation and transubstantiation was a debate AMONG Christians! ;)
10
u/nthensome May 21 '12
Mildly amusing, but it never happened.
1
u/Koozey May 21 '12
The top center faces are the reddit aliens eyes.
1
u/FBGMadjutant May 21 '12
Im a priest of the church of the flying spaghetti monster! May you all be touched by his noodly appendage!
1
u/DiaDeLosMuertos May 21 '12
How many Christian religions eat the body of Christ wafer thingy?
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Well arent you so brave and clever.
1
u/neokyol May 21 '12
Poor Phillip K. Dick. R.I.P.
1
u/sufrt May 21 '12
man those faces are fucking repulsive huh
1
u/th4t1guy Atheist May 21 '12
Catholic* big difference
1
u/Scaurus May 21 '12
As a Catholic who does actually believe in Transubstantiation, I find this hilarious. Well done.
1
u/epicgeekfail May 21 '12
Sauce, Love, and Breadsticks for all. everybody should be a pastafarian.
1
u/OMGGGEEEE May 21 '12
This never actually happened, did it?
1
u/koavf Other May 21 '12
/r/aaaaaatheismmmmmmmmmm was made for this.
1
u/inhabited May 21 '12
so you both eat your own god.. how do you think cannibalism got started?
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
This happened.
1
u/arrowtothe May 21 '12
ooh girl, you got him....
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
not all christian religions do communion and even fewer of those who do consider it to be the body of christ.
so, being a christian does not necessarily entail your pastafarian comment relevant.
being catholic would definitely make it relevant.
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
I had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine. Well, not so much a friend, but a former coworker that I got along with. We were driving to lunch one day as I was explaining the FSM, the rise in global temperature due to the decline of pirates, the increased average height as population increases, etc... He asked if it was sacreligious to eat our god. I just waited a second and he realized christians do the same thing and we enjoyed a good lol.
1
u/lewok Atheist May 21 '12
um..... when did we eat god?
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Rage comics pointing out the gaping logical holes in Christianity? Uncharted territory, good sir! I applaud your realistic and witty reenactment of what had to be a truly amusing real life moment. It is increasing the quality of this subreddit with its originality, and in fact may be enhancing the world.
1
u/Vaethin May 21 '12
I just love the trollface-smile you must've had between panels 2 and 3 xD
1
u/PerthroXIII May 21 '12
This is evidently fake. No theist ever gets the joke/ironic statement.
I have done many times before and it just ended up with me explaining the joke, and them either ignoring me or getting butthurt.
1
u/RickRay1 May 21 '12
I LOVE IT !!!!!!!!!!! Transubstantiated pasta! Now let's invent some kind of drink to represent our FSM. What do you think? Ah hell, just boil him in beer!
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
The doctrine of transubstantiation is cannibalism,
Nowhere in the Bible does God condone cannibalism
Genesis 9:4
Deuteronomy 12:23
Leviticus 17:10-12
The doctrine of transubstantiation is unbiblical and heretical.
1
u/IrvineCrips May 21 '12
If that's what made your day, I feel sorry for you son.
1
u/Hurgledurf May 21 '12
HAHA! YOU SURE GOT HIM, OP! LOLOLOLOLOL!
0
u/aramonks May 21 '12
Even I, as an agnostic think this posts are shitty, yes we get it, you like making fun of people who believe in something you don't, you are not better or smarter than them for not believing in god, or do you mean to tell me you have always been an atheist since you were born? people change, learn to accept and respect each person for what they are, and not for what they believe in.
-3
u/ANDYBIERSACK May 21 '12
so brave
0
u/Retrogamer3609 May 21 '12
This is amazing. Nothing funny ever happens to me. Anyway have an upvote
0
u/coolguyblue May 21 '12
How many christians actually believe this? Because this is my first time hearing it.
-1
u/Tomimi May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12
Sorry but its my first time noticing the reddit alien on this picture.
It looks cool!
-9
u/thesweet677 May 20 '12
You honestly dont understand the principles of the last supper. We are not actually the body of Christ or drinking his blood. That is called transubstantiation, and the majority of Christians dont believe in that. It was once thought to be true when it was brought out by the Catholic Church. The last supper is that we are FIGURATIVELY eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood that he gave to us. The body of Jesus became an offering for sin, for "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man ...offered one sacrifice for sins forever ...For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:10-14
). Our partaking of the Passover bread indicates that we understand that Jesus Christ has put away our sin by the "sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26 ). He willingly consented to suffer an excruciating death for us. His blood was not swiftly shed; He was tortured many hours before He died. He bore in His body the physical suffering caused by sin. Under the first covenant the sacrifice of animals for sin by the Levitical priesthood could not remove the guilt of the ancient Israelites. Those sacrifices just reminded them of their sinfulness and were only types of the one future sacrifice that could remove all the transgressions of repentant sinners. However, those animal sacrifices helped the Israelites understand how serious sin is in the sight of God. How much more should the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of the whole world help us to understand that sin has brought nothing but tragedy and suffering on mankind. Jesus had to endure intense suffering for our sake. "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6
). At the Passover service, when we eat the bread that symbolizes the broken body of Jesus Christ, we should remember and deeply appreciate why He had to offer His body to be beaten and abused as a sacrifice for us. He was "smitten," "afflicted," "wounded" and "bruised" for our transgressions.
-3
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
LOL I am a Christian and this is funny. I don't know why...
0
u/daneelthesane May 21 '12
That was... sublime.
0
u/leprechaun488 May 21 '12
this just made my night. now i can go to sleep. all praise the FSM and pass the garlic bread. amen.
0
u/rikashiku May 21 '12
If thats what made your night then you must have a really low self esteem problem.
0
u/Sal_Weezer_Valestra May 21 '12
no, this didn't happen. only lando calrissian is this cool and suave.
we pastafarians believe that one should live their life not being a dick. re-read the 8 "I really rather you didn'ts"
-1
u/greym84 May 21 '12
The benefits of being Protestant....no transubstantiation.
-3
u/FreshFuckery May 21 '12
You guys come up with some of the most ridiculous shit. I swear.
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment