Jesus Loves You

[razeontherock]

I didn't present the idea at all, but I do know Sith is right. Isn't it ironic that RC did an about face, taking Luther's much more sensible lead? Some just haven't gotten the memo yet. And of course that will never be the official RC position, but it still amounts to the same thing.

 

[b&wpac4]

I didn't present the idea at all, but I do know Sith is right ..

You were discussing putting it under a microscope and such. All I am suggesting is that you might go ask them what it means so that you can better understand their point of view.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by SithDoughnut You can call it metaphorical or spiritual cannibalism, or something else entirely, if you want, but there are many Christians who firmly believe that they are actually eating the body of Christ.

Originally Posted by razeontherock Millions do this, yes. Let them take it to a lab for examination under a microscope. Why don't they do this? Because they know their belief is simply not true.

Before insulting the belief, you may want to stop by OBOB and ask them about this practice. I'm not saying I believe it (or course) but you are not presenting the idea correctly.

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic

http://www.christianforums.com/f718/
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology

http://www.christianforums.com/t7442906/
How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? (2)

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, not at all. Back up a few pages and re-read the context! Religion is a completely different subject, and irrelevant.

I did, just to make sure that I wasn't being stupid. The quote that started this whole chain of discussion off is not very far back.

Yet I look at great men and women worldwide and note that they aren't all of the same faith.

Here, faith means beliefs or religion. You may use a different definition, and other definitions may have been used earlier on, but this is the quote that set the context.

I feel compelled to mention it again: if we're going to discuss your Faith-with-a-capital-F, then you're going to have to define it for me, otherwise I'll have no idea what you're talking about.

Like back to that, for instance. Leave out the minor time amounts of strange behavior in whatever-shaped building, or peculiar verbiage. Stick to action, and I'm asking what divisions or labels you will see to distinguish "different" Faiths?

So, basically, you're asking me to totally ignore a hugely important part of many people's belief systems? Are your beliefs merely minor time amounts of strange behaviour? Is that what Christianity is for you?

If you want to talk about faith in a purely secular context, there are people who have different ethical and political views, yet many of them are still good people. Many Jainists who practice an ethical view of non-violence to all living things are good, but there are also many good people who like a good chicken burger now and then.

Millions do this, yes. Let them take it to a lab for examination under a microscope. Why don't they do this? Because they know their belief is simply not true. Some RC's even go so far as to say their church never taught that idea.

Why did you suddenly switch from people who do believe in eating the physical body of Christ to those who don't? I can't make heads or tails of this bit.

I get a good chuckle out of it, but the whole thing just isn't worth pursuing. You're talking about a practice that takes up a max of what, 5 minutes / week or less? This is not a part of real life.

Breakfast for me takes about 10 minutes a day, if I have breakfast at all. Is that not part of real life? What exactly are you basing your increasingly selective viewpoint on? All life is real life, everything I do is based upon my beliefs, faith and views. I sit on a chair because I have faith that it will hold me. I don't worship God because I believe that he does not exist. I don't murder people because my ethical views say that it is wrong. People, unless they are subject to external pressure, will not act contrary to their faith.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Breakfast for me takes about 10 minutes a day, if I have breakfast at all. .

Ever seen "My Cousin Vinny" when they stop at a diner for breakfast and Vinny ask the cook "what's a grit".
He later uses that info of the time it takes to cook grits when questioning a witness at a trial

YouTube - My Cousin Vinny

 

[Caitlin.ann]

What are grits?

 

[Zeena]

How's about using the definition of faith already given us in the Bible, rather than a definition from those who have not placed their faith in Christ?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There's faith, which we all have, and then there's the faith.

 

[SithDoughnut]

How's about using the definition of faith already given us in the Bible, rather than a definition from those who have not placed their faith in Christ?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There's faith, which we all have, and then there's the faith.

Which fits in perfectly with one secular definition: 'belief in something without proof'.

The faith would be what, exactly? I presume you mean the Christian faith, but I'm not completely sure. One thing that I always find midly annoying about philosophical/religious discussion is that it really lends itself to vague and often incoherent statements. If you're going to make a statement like that, you really need to explain what you mean. Don't assume that people already know.

That wasn't aimed at you personally, all sorts of people are guilty of it, me included.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What are grits?

^
This.

 

[Zeena]

Which fits in perfectly with one secular definition: 'belief in something without proof'.

I'll give ya that

The faith would be what, exactly? I presume you mean the Christian faith, but I'm not completely sure. One thing that I always find midly annoying about philosophical/religious discussion is that it really lends itself to vague and often incoherent statements. If you're going to make a statement like that, you really need to explain what you mean. Don't assume that people already know.

That wasn't aimed at you personally, all sorts of people are guilty of it, me included.

Understood, and am more than willing to comply.

There are several instances of 'the' faith stated for us in the Scripture but we need only look at one, and that is the faith of Jesus, Only Begotten of the Father.

Gal 3:23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Make no mistake, Saint Paul is not informing his readers that faith was non-existant before the advent of Christ. Rather, he is exhorting fellow believers as to what exactly they've received, when they received Christ;

Gal 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ergo, the faith, is none other than the Person of Christ Jesus, Living His Holy Life in and through believers so submitted to Him for such [Eternal] Life, the Life of the Father.

When you see a professed Christian doing anything which you know, by Witness of the Holy Spirit [which Spirit, I might add, Witnesses throughout the world, convicting and exhorting with full Authority] is not Christ-like.. you can be sure that person is NOT walking in the faith.

Ergo, when you say that you see a conflict in 'the' faith by means of theology, it cannot be, for it does not fit with the definition of 'the' faith. Theology does not save, Jesus does.. Neither, in fact, can doctrine save, only Jesus saves. We hope for what we see not, and we, with ever increasing patience as a virtue of the Character of Christ in and through us, wait for it to materialise.. We wait for Him.

 

[razeontherock]

Yup. So Sith, you say you used to be a Christian. Did you have the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints? If you had, you wouldn't have magically forgotten these things ...

 

[scraparcs]

Before insulting the belief, you may want to stop by OBOB and ask them about this practice. I'm not saying I believe it (or course) but you are not presenting the idea correctly.

I didn't present the idea at all, but I do know Sith is right. Isn't it ironic that RC did an about face, taking Luther's much more sensible lead? Some just haven't gotten the memo yet. And of course that will never be the official RC position, but it still amounts to the same thing.

Retaining the accidentals of bread and wine is not the same as not being the flesh and blood of Jesus. So definitely under a microscope it would look like bread and wine.

 

[Glass*Soul]

How's about using the definition of faith already given us in the Bible, rather than a definition from those who have not placed their faith in Christ?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There's faith, which we all have, and then there's the faith.

So, faith occurs when the thing one hopes for has taken on substance and can be physically touched and something previously invisible is now making itself available to the gathering of evidence?

 

[Zeena]

Retaining the accidentals of bread and wine is not the same as not being the flesh and blood of Jesus.

The first is of religion, the second is of the faith.

So definitely under a microscope it would look like bread and wine.

Only in the second case

John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

So, faith occurs when the thing one hopes for has taken on substance

It is by the Grace of God, THROUGH faith that these things are so, not the other way around;

1 Cor 12:27
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

So I suppose faith can be said to "occur" when you confess you believe on the facts, as presented.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

and can be physically touched and something previously invisible is now making itself available to the gathering of evidence?

Not physically, for we walk by faith, not by sight, until the Lord comes again in Glory. But yes, if you switch out the word physically for spiritually, then yes.

Col 2:5
For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

razeontherock, I wonder if you are aware of the fact that Martin Luther did NOT claim that communion was solely symbolic - unlike some other Reformers.
Yes, he was uncomfortable with the cannibalistic undertones of the transsubstantiation doctrine (IOW: bread and wine being mystically transformed into actual flesh and blood, while retaining the taste and texture of the original substance).
But instead of doing away with it altogether, he argued that what happened is best described as a state of consubstantiation: It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

In other words: physical substance = bread and wine; "spiritual" substance = flesh and blood.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'll give ya that

Understood, and am more than willing to comply.

There are several instances of 'the' faith stated for us in the Scripture but we need only look at one, and that is the faith of Jesus, Only Begotten of the Father.

Gal 3:23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Make no mistake, Saint Paul is not informing his readers that faith was non-existant before the advent of Christ. Rather, he is exhorting fellow believers as to what exactly they've received, when they received Christ;

Gal 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ergo, the faith, is none other than the Person of Christ Jesus, Living His Holy Life in and through believers so submitted to Him for such [Eternal] Life, the Life of the Father.

When you see a professed Christian doing anything which you know, by Witness of the Holy Spirit [which Spirit, I might add, Witnesses throughout the world, convicting and exhorting with full Authority] is not Christ-like.. you can be sure that person is NOT walking in the faith.

Ergo, when you say that you see a conflict in 'the' faith by means of theology, it cannot be, for it does not fit with the definition of 'the' faith. Theology does not save, Jesus does.. Neither, in fact, can doctrine save, only Jesus saves. We hope for what we see not, and we, with ever increasing patience as a virtue of the Character of Christ in and through us, wait for it to materialise.. We wait for Him.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that you and I were thinking about the same definition of the faith.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yup. So Sith, you say you used to be a Christian. Did you have the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints? If you had, you wouldn't have magically forgotten these things ...

Forgotten what? I was merely asking for clarification on which definition of faith was being used. I'm still waiting for your definition, or were you using the same one?

If you were using the same one, then my point definitely stands. Many good people in the world do not have the faith as defined in the Bible, as they do not have faith in Christ.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Dear Christians:

please do not assume that every other Christian thinks and believes exactly like you do, or that Ex-Christians only qualify as such if they used to share your particular beliefs.

Back in the days of GA, we used to discuss things like Hell - and any time somebody brought up some definition of hell that was used by some Christians, some other would turn up and say that the whole argument was faulty, simply because he or she believed something else entirely.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was separation from God.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was God's presence as experienced by the sinner.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was a literal place of fire and brimstone.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was an abstract metaphor.
We had Christians claiming that people "choose hell".
We had Christians claiming that God predestines people to hell.


In short, the whole "no true Christian"-angle fails spectacularly on account of the enormous heterogeneity of contemporary Christianity. I bet you that I can find you some Bible-believing, "spirit-filled", reborn-from-above Christian who'll claim that your exact beliefs on various matters are actually UNChristian, and signify that a former Christian who talks about them thus betrays that he was never a REAL Christian to begin with.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Back in the days of GA, we used to discuss things like Hell - and any time somebody brought up some definition of hell that was used by some Christians, some other would turn up and say that the whole argument was faulty, simply because he or she believed something else entirely.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was separation from God.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was God's presence as experienced by the sinner.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was a literal place of fire and brimstone.
We had Christians claiming that Hell was an abstract metaphor.
We had Christians claiming that people "choose hell".
We had Christians claiming that God predestines people to hell.

This was my experience as well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

the whole "no true Christian"-angle fails spectacularly on account of

No it doesn't, and your example here PROVES it. If the best you can dig up is something none of us have any say over anyway, and nothing that involves daily life - -

it's irrelevant.