Throw as many words at it as you want, but literally happening means happening in real life, actually, physically, genuinely, for real. It doesn’t depend on belief.
IDK man… Believing you’re actually cannibalizing someone even if you’re not is a bit more fucked up than understanding you’re not actually eating human flesh and it’s just a ritual.
Ok here’s a question - if you have bleeding gums and swallow the blood, are you a cannibal? What if somebody gives you a drop of their blood to swallow? If Catholics believe Jesus is immortal, do they think they’re being cannibals by drinking a small amount of his blood with his consent (in fact, it’s his idea)? In my mind the central question is, does this debate matter any more than an argument about whether Superman could beat up The Hulk? To that last one I’ll say no, it doesn’t, to me it’s all just idle amusement.
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn’t matter at all that it doesn’t literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to “you”, where “you” applies to the reader if and only if the reader “regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting”. I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they “literally” eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
Throw as many words at it as you want, but literally happening means happening in real life, actually, physically, genuinely, for real. It doesn’t depend on belief.
IDK man… Believing you’re actually cannibalizing someone even if you’re not is a bit more fucked up than understanding you’re not actually eating human flesh and it’s just a ritual.
Ok here’s a question - if you have bleeding gums and swallow the blood, are you a cannibal? What if somebody gives you a drop of their blood to swallow? If Catholics believe Jesus is immortal, do they think they’re being cannibals by drinking a small amount of his blood with his consent (in fact, it’s his idea)? In my mind the central question is, does this debate matter any more than an argument about whether Superman could beat up The Hulk? To that last one I’ll say no, it doesn’t, to me it’s all just idle amusement.
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn’t matter at all that it doesn’t literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to “you”, where “you” applies to the reader if and only if the reader “regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting”. I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they “literally” eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
Reading comprehension is dead lol
Ironic, then, that I can’t comprehend whether you are concurring or dissenting from my view. Whom are you suggesting isn’t comprehending?
Oh the person you were replying to obviously isn’t comprehending the words you wrote.
I would agree with that assessment.