I'll Say This Much About Jesus...

[En_Route]

I must say I find the jeering tone of the contributions here mildly disturbing. I regard Christians as profoundly mistaken, but I feel no urge to trample on their sensitivities or to ridicule Catholics as some species of necrophiliacs. Like it or not, many Christians are otherwise rational people, some  of them with greater generosity of spirit and tolerance than I've seen displayed so far on this thread. And of course,I accept that  some Christians, particularly those of an evangelical bent, discriminate against and vilify atheists. Returning the compliment only plays to their agenda.

[MadBomr101]

That's just odd. it is insanely toned but starved, I'm no expert but don't the muscles have to deteriorate before that type of starvation happens to the skin.

That may be true of mere mortals but this is the son of god so the rules don't apply.  A starved, dying Jesus who can still pull off a six-pack is just how god rolls.   

[Stevil]

I must say I find the jeering tone of the contributions here mildly disturbing. I regard Christians as profoundly mistaken, but I feel no urge to trample on their sensitivities or to ridicule Catholics as some species of necrophiliacs. Like it or not, many Christians are otherwise rational people, some  of them with greater generosity of spirit and tolerance than I've seen displayed so far on this thread. And of course,I accept that  some Christians, particularly those of an evangelical bent, discriminate against and vilify atheists. Returning the compliment only plays to their agenda.

Let's not get stuck on evangelical bent, extremists.

The normal, average day Catholic is taught to believe at Eucharist they are eating Jesus flesh, this is what they believe, don't they?
Or are they just giving lip service to their church? The one they are taught to believe is infallible.

The normal, average day Christian is taught to accept the death of their Jesus as absolution for their own sins.

I don't know how to accept that otherwise sane, intelligent people can hold these positions.

[Crow]

I've never seen a Chinese, Mexican, African or gay Jesus. Whose image is he really being made in?

Google images will show you the light, not many Chinese Jesus but loads of the other examples.

[En_Route]

I must say I find the jeering tone of the contributions here mildly disturbing. I regard Christians as profoundly mistaken, but I feel no urge to trample on their sensitivities or to ridicule Catholics as some species of necrophiliacs. Like it or not, many Christians are otherwise rational people, some  of them with greater generosity of spirit and tolerance than I've seen displayed so far on this thread. And of course,I accept that  some Christians, particularly those of an evangelical bent, discriminate against and vilify atheists. Returning the compliment only plays to their agenda.

Let's not get stuck on evangelical bent, extremists.

The normal, average day Catholic is taught to believe at Eucharist they are eating Jesus flesh, this is what they believe, don't they?
Or are they just giving lip service to their church? The one they are taught to believe is infallible.

The normal, average day Christian is taught to accept the death of their Jesus as absolution for their own sins.

I don't know how to accept that otherwise sane, intelligent people can hold these positions.

It's not that difficult to explain. I don't believe a smart guy like you can't work it out.
And to say that that Transibstantiation implies some for of cannibalism is a crude caricature of Catholic dogma.

[En_Route]

I must say I find the jeering tone of the contributions here mildly disturbing. I regard Christians as profoundly mistaken, but I feel no urge to trample on their sensitivities or to ridicule Catholics as some species of necrophiliacs. Like it or not, many Christians are otherwise rational people, some  of them with greater generosity of spirit and tolerance than I've seen displayed so far on this thread. And of course,I accept that  some Christians, particularly those of an evangelical bent, discriminate against and vilify atheists. Returning the compliment only plays to their agenda.

Let's not get stuck on evangelical bent, extremists.

The normal, average day Catholic is taught to believe at Eucharist they are eating Jesus flesh, this is what they believe, don't they?
Or are they just giving lip service to their church? The one they are taught to believe is infallible.

The normal, average day Christian is taught to accept the death of their Jesus as absolution for their own sins.

I don't know how to accept that otherwise sane, intelligent people can hold these positions.

It's not that difficult to explain. I don't believe a smart guy like you can't work it out.
And to say that that Transubtantiation implies some for of cannibalism is a crude caricature of Catholic dogma.

[Recusant]

If it's literally true that the consecrated communion wafer is the body of Jesus (the Catholics say that it is), and Jesus is a living human (all of Christianity believes that Jesus is alive right now, even if he's only physically on the earth during the communion ceremony), then the communion ceremony is ritualized cannibalism. This is simply the fact of the matter. One can decry those who ridicule this bizarre belief, and even say that stripping away the mystical malarkey which surrounds the Catholic communion and calling it by its real name is "crude," but it is what it is.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I've never seen a Chinese, Mexican, African or gay Jesus. Whose image is he really being made in?

I've seen Hispanic and black Jesuses (sp?).  Every culture that adopts him eventually assimilates him into their ethos. He's highly assimilable and digestible. What would a gay Jesus look like, anyway?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If it's literally true that the consecrated communion wafer is the body of Jesus (the Catholics say that it is), and Jesus is a living human (all of Christianity believes that Jesus is alive right now, even if he's only physically on the earth during the communion ceremony), then the communion ceremony is ritualized cannibalism. This is simply the fact of the matter. One can decry those who ridicule this bizarre belief, and even say that stripping away the mystical malarkey which surrounds the Catholic communion and calling it by its real name is "crude," but it is what it is.

If the ritual does not include a belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood, but are symbols infused with special meaning, then it's not cannibalism. It's eating bread and drinking wine, not much different than drinking a toast to a very good friend. It doesn't need to be taken to the extreme.  Moderation is the key.

[Stevil]

It's not that difficult to explain. I don't believe a smart guy like you can't work it out.
And to say that that Transibstantiation implies some for of cannibalism is a crude caricature of Catholic dogma.

I've never been a theist, I really do struggle when trying to understand some of this stuff.

Transubstantiation

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ that was believed to occur in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[5] The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215,[6] spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".

It just sounds disgusting to me. I wouldn't eat the bread or wine if I believed it transubstantiated into Jesus' body and blood. Eucharist would be a time for me to Fast.

At least the Potestants aren't into it

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an Aristotelian "pseudo-philosophy"[8] imported into Christian teaching and jettisoned in favor of Martin Luther's doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial

[En_Route]

If it's literally true that the consecrated communion wafer is the body of Jesus (the Catholics say that it is), and Jesus is a living human (all of Christianity believes that Jesus is alive right now, even if he's only physically on the earth during the communion ceremony), then the communion ceremony is ritualized cannibalism. This is simply the fact of the matter. One can decry those who ridicule this bizarre belief, and even say that stripping away the mystical malarkey which surrounds the Catholic communion and calling it by its real name is "crude," but it is what it is.

Well of course as no bodies are harmed in the communion process, as an issue of fact, it is not cannibalism of any variety, ritualised or otherwise. Further,Catholics accept, as they must, there is no change in the physical properties of the communion bread, so they don't even mistakenly believe they are engaged in cannibalism. The bread is transformed into the very essence of Jesus, his whole being, including his soul and divine nature.
Of course it makes no sense at a rational level. Mystical mumbo- jumbo it is, but to reduce the concept to a cartoon version where Catholics think they are sinking their fangs into a Jesusburger does the atheist cause a serious disservice. It makes its proponents look as ignorant, hysterical and bigoted as any evangelical,redneck.

[Recusant]

If the ritual does not include a belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood, but are symbols infused with special meaning, then it's not cannibalism. It's eating bread and drinking wine, not much different than drinking a toast to a very good friend. It doesn't need to be taken to the extreme.  Moderation is the key.

I see that Stevil has been quicker than I, but I'll post anyway.

The Catholics insist that the wafer and the wine do literally change to the actual flesh and blood of Christ. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist".

First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood".

and,

. . . according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Stevil]

I've never seen a Chinese, Mexican, African or gay Jesus. Whose image is he really being made in?

I've seen Hispanic and black Jesuses (sp?).  Every culture that adopts him eventually assimilates him into their ethos. He's highly assimilable and digestible. What would a gay Jesus look like, anyway?

OK, I've just always seen a white Jesus, when I've always thought he would have been middle eastern as I don't think there was much world travel at that time.
A gay Jesus, LOL, I don't know, most gays I know look no different to non gays. But maybe Jesus was the flamboyant type. He didn't get married did he? Given how popular he was, one can only draw conclusions.

BTW Just kidding, always good for a laugh to suggest Jesus was gay. Christians will take it as a horrible insult of course, given their stance on homosexuality. In my opinion, if he was gay, it would be no big deal.

[Recusant]

Well of course as no bodies are harmed in the communion process, as an issue of fact, it is not cannibalism of any variety, ritualised or otherwise.

If you refuse to believe that the Catholics actually profess to believe that they are in actual fact eating the body of Jesus, for whatever reason, I don't care. They're the ones making the absurd claim, not I. If taking them at their word makes me "ignorant, hysterical and bigoted," then so be it. I stand by my characterization (not caricature) as completely accurate.

[MadBomr101]

The Catholics insist that the wafer and the wine do literally change to the actual flesh and blood of Christ. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist".

Correct.  I was raised Roman Catholic and this is what I was taught as a boy.  It never occurred to me at that time what a completely f**ked up idea this is.  Just another reason I left all this superstitious horsesh*t behind.