Zone1 If we worship One God...

[Carl in Michigan]

There is no Hebrew/Aramaic word for cannibal. The Latin and Greek weren't around until about 1500 years after Christ.

From Got Questions:

The Old Testament closely associates cannibalism with the final stages of judgment from God, thus marking it as a loathsome and evil practice.

Cannibalism is mentioned in the Bible. Although there is no direct statement such as, “Thou shalt not eat human flesh,” the obvious indication from Scripture is that cannibalism is a terrible evil.

After the global flood, God gave Noah permission to eat meat. "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (Genesis 9:3). However, God specifies that the “food for you” does not include fellow human beings. People are treated much differently from animals: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9:6).

Cannibalism is mentioned several times in Scripture (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10), but in each case, the practice is regarded as a horrible curse and inhuman act of desperation. Moses and other prophets predicted that, if the Israelites forsook God, they would fall into such awful degradation as to cannibalize their own children. These harrowing prophecies were fulfilled during the siege of Samaria during the reign of King Jehoram (2 Kings 6:28-29). Cannibalism was the physical horror which accompanied the spiritual horror of apostasy.

Cannibalism has been ritualized in some pagan cultures as part of a religious ceremony or cultural superstition. Thus, not only is the act itself wrong, but also the reason behind the act is wrong. For example, some people groups would eat the flesh of dead family members, believing that doing so would allow the spirits of those who had died to live on.

 

[there4eyeM]

When Jesus made his horrifying references at the 'last supper', it was exactly to shake his followers out of their hypnotic trance of linguistic entanglement. He knew that faithful Jews could not accept such an idea as eating human flesh nor consuming blood of any kind. How, then, can his words be understood? One would have to open up to the widest possible interpretation, and that is a primary condition for understanding Jesus' existence and message. Doctrine is exactly what is undermined. Intuitive revelation is what is required.
If "God" is one, and if Jesus is one with "God", then everything is in Jesus and Jesus in everything. Remembering that when one eats an apple, or anything else, one is taking in and 'transubtantiating' that food into oneself, is remembering Jesus, the "One", and our direct connection. It isn't something to do a couple of times a year or one's lifetime. It is every meal, every glass of water. Even every breath.

 

[ding]

When Jesus made his horrifying references at the 'last supper', it was exactly to shake his followers out of their hypnotic trance of linguistic entanglement. He knew that faithful Jews could not accept such an idea as eating human flesh nor consuming blood of any kind. How, then, can his words be understood? One would have to open up to the widest possible interpretation, and that is a primary condition for understanding Jesus' existence and message. Doctrine is exactly what is undermined. Intuitive revelation is what is required.
If "God" is one, and if Jesus is one with "God", then everything is in Jesus and Jesus in everything. Remembering that when one eats an apple, or anything else, one is taking in and 'transubtantiating' that food into oneself, is remembering Jesus, the "One", and our direct connection. It isn't something to do a couple of times a year or one's lifetime. It is every meal, every glass of water. Even every breath.

Given the last supper was a separate event from John 6:25-66 your argument that Jesus commanding them to eat his flesh and drink his blood to shock them doesn't hold water. And then there's Paul admonishment to the early Christians that they were not just eating bread and water.

 

[Meriweather]

How, then, can his words be understood?

Manna. Bread of the Presence. Stating plainly the reality of who he is.

And yet some are pleased to go galloping off after cannibalism.

 

[Meriweather]

The process would be far smoother if people being eager to promote their scripture conceded to the obvious - that 'the sacred texts' were written by people for other people of respective cultures, mindset and traditions. That these people needed a god or gods who can listen to them, speak with them, protect them, crush their enemies, punish the evil etc.

The part omitted is that people then--and now--have valid experiences of God.

God meets people where they are. Taking a look at the commandments and instructions given during Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy paints a striking picture of the society and even the economics in that age.

It is vital for all to understand that some have no experience of God and cannot truthfully come to belief. That can be plainly seen in the books listed above. People of faith and people who are atheist/agnostic do have a common trait: Truth.

For true atheists/agnostics of modern times, God (as portrayed in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) is a distraction. For many modern Christians, and I was once in this number, we cannot understand why God is portrayed as He is in the Old Testament.

God loves His Chosen People
He points to a specific, disciplined way of living
People turn away from these teachings
They reap the consequences of their wrong choices

To heighten the conflict between disciplined ways and easier/less disciplined ways the stories are told as God becoming angry and zapping people here and there, rather than pointing out how we bring these consequences down upon ourselves. Look more closely, and God's patience and willingness to start all over again is obvious.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why do I bother? Goodbye.

 

[Meriweather]

Why do I bother? Goodbye.

What are you trying to accomplish? If, you are showing there are other ways to understand Jesus' words, you have accomplished that. We know there are other ways to reflect on Jesus' intent. You have not failed in that.

If you are trying to tear apart and denigrate another way of understanding Jesus' words, then you shouldn't bother. We hear what you say. We understand why you say it. Some of us see it from an entirely different perspective, a very different level.

Why do we bother? Why don't we say good-bye? Because what Jesus proclaimed is awesome, and hits people at levels and all perspectives.

Let blessings shine upon you and cheer you. Your posts are not ignored, but carefully considered.

 

[BreezeWood]

Why do we bother? Why don't we say good-bye? Because what Jesus proclaimed is awesome, and hits people at levels and all perspectives.

fact is you are enamored w/ a 4th century book of unknown source its authorship or content and other equally ill discripted documents -

and not a single word written or spoken by jesus preserved by them as a direct link for posterity in comparison to the above - as you claim. as well the rejection for obviously misconstrued content for the true events of the 1st century, the repudiation of judaism.

 

[ESay]

The part omitted is that people then--and now--have valid experiences of God.

God meets people where they are. Taking a look at the commandments and instructions given during Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy paints a striking picture of the society and even the economics in that age.

It is vital for all to understand that some have no experience of God and cannot truthfully come to belief. That can be plainly seen in the books listed above. People of faith and people who are atheist/agnostic do have a common trait: Truth.

For true atheists/agnostics of modern times, God (as portrayed in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) is a distraction. For many modern Christians, and I was once in this number, we cannot understand why God is portrayed as He is in the Old Testament.

God loves His Chosen People
He points to a specific, disciplined way of living
People turn away from these teachings
They reap the consequences of their wrong choices

To heighten the conflict between disciplined ways and easier/less disciplined ways the stories are told as God becoming angry and zapping people here and there, rather than pointing out how we bring these consequences down upon ourselves. Look more closely, and God's patience and willingness to start all over again is obvious.

Various people and various cultures have their own concept of 'God'. Through centuries they developed this concept being based on their background. So, quite naturally, these concepts have significant differences.

It doesn't mean these concepts are good or bad. They are just different. Though, I should admit that Christianity is 'better' than some Oriental religions, because it has strong emphasis on morality.

As I said above, the myths and legends should be placed on their places. My personal concept of God excludes any human features - such as anger, love, need in 'allies', personal communication - from 'Him'. 'He' doesn't need anyone and doesn't want any things being done for 'Him'.

 

[Cougarbear]

...why bash the worship of others by attacking their faith, religious denomination, or the ways they worship?

Because I love them and want them to truly obtain Eternal Life

 

[ding]

Why do I bother? Goodbye.

It's literally the purpose of attending mass.

 

[Meriweather]

'He' doesn't need anyone and doesn't want any things being done for 'Him'.

More interesting is what He has done for us.

 

[Meriweather]

Because I love them and want them to truly obtain Eternal Life

Catholic belief is that we enter into eternal life in this present world, and this continues on in the next life.

Speaking for people is not love. If my family and I wanted your baptism, we would have spoken to you in this life. The literal response I got from a member of your Church (and I consider her a good friend) when I begged to have no such "baptism" was, "Neener, neener. It's going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it!"

Your "baptism" is not love. It is desecration of my holy ground. One doesn't desecrate what one loves. All of you ought to be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

 

[dblack]

Tis true. Its all a bit ridiculous in many ways.

Especially this. Like the ritual of pretending to eat a 2k year old dead mans flesh and drink his blood.

I've heard Christianity described as a "bizarre middle-eastern death cult". It's hard to argue with the characterization.

 

[Cougarbear]

Catholic belief is that we enter into eternal life in this present world, and this continues on in the next life.

Speaking for people is not love. If my family and I wanted your baptism, we would have spoken to you in this life. The literal response I got from a member of your Church (and I consider her a good friend) when I begged to have no such "baptism" was, "Neener, neener. It's going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it!"

Your "baptism" is not love. It is desecration of my holy ground. One doesn't desecrate what one loves. All of you ought to be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

And you also deny the words of both Peter and Paul. Mary too?
This shows the doctrine you changed and perverted. Imagine the tens of billions of souls damned to hell for all eternity because they did not receive a Christian baptism in this life. Such wickedness.

 

[ding]

Fine. You pretend to eat a live mans flesh and drink his blood.
That works for me too

It's supposed to offend you.

 

[Meriweather]

Imagine the tens of billions of souls damned to hell for all eternity

And that's your picture of God...that is, besides an apparent belief that where you imagine God doing something one way--or fails in doing it--the LDS Church can go over His head and save the day.

 

[ding]

And you also deny the words of both Peter and Paul. Mary too?
This shows the doctrine you changed and perverted. Imagine the tens of billions of souls damned to hell for all eternity because they did not receive a Christian baptism in this life. Such wickedness.

I'm pretty sure she just denies you. Your interpretation of scripture leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Ace Nova]

Two things wrong with this. First, no Pope made any such "command" because early Christians had already adopted the practice. It is one of the many traditions that "came from the Pews" not from the Pope. Secondly, I already explained the many definitions and etymology of what Jesus was teaching/referencing. If anything, I defer to the etymology and actuality of what Jesus was addressing.

Today, it would be call no one father, teacher, boss, mister, missus, or ms. and if we were to remove all these words from our language and replace them with others, the translation would be, "Call no one...by any of the new words. For example, most likely Jesus' own words in Aramaic would have been, Call no man 'Ab'. No one is addressing a priest or pope as "Ab".

In Jesus day, 'Ab' was also being used to designate the founder of a religious sect. Jesus was merely pointing out that God is the founder of faith. Even 'Father Abraham' the human founder of the idea of One God, got his knowledge not from himself, but from God.

Again, even today, 'Father' has over twenty definitions and the same would have been true in Jesus' time. Jesus was not going around teaching children not to call their male parent 'father' or not to address an elderly man with a respectful 'father'.

I think I mentioned before this is a case where you are straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel--when it comes to the definition and etymology of what Jesus was speaking of. And, I did not get my research from the Church, the Pope, etc. I simply researched the history of the time, the word usages of the time, and the etymology of these words.

You can argue all you want that despite my research I misunderstand what Jesus meant, but the one thing you cannot declare is by reaching my own conclusion and understanding, I am "deferring" to the Pope.

In fact, I will suggest that it is more accurate to say that you are "deferring" to the Protestant perception of "Father" and accepting that rather than doing any research.

Very good.

This is evident when Jesus taught his Apostles how to pray the Lord's prayer, The Our Father. Jesus specifically states "Our Father, WHO IS IN HEAVEN". If there was no differentiating the word "Father", Jesus would have simply stated, "Our Father"

The fact that he specifically states, "Who is in heaven" directly alludes to the fact that Jesus himself referred to others here on earth as Fathers and Mothers but wanted it to be known that he was speaking about God Our Father in Heaven. (And yes, there are likely various synonyms of the word "Father" that may have been "lost" in translation and may have no direct translation to English.) And yet Jesus, in his divine wisdom, spoke the Our Father so that every language would understand that he was speaking of God the Father in heaven by stating "Our Father, Who is in Heaven".

 

[Ace Nova]

Catholic belief is that we enter into eternal life in this present world, and this continues on in the next life.

Speaking for people is not love. If my family and I wanted your baptism, we would have spoken to you in this life. The literal response I got from a member of your Church (and I consider her a good friend) when I begged to have no such "baptism" was, "Neener, neener. It's going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it!"

Your "baptism" is not love. It is desecration of my holy ground. One doesn't desecrate what one loves. All of you ought to be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Fear not, it is written within our creed that we "Confess ONE Baptism, for the forgiveness of sins". Anyone can baptize you 1000 times and it will not change the fact that you already received the ONE true baptism when you became Christian (Catholic). (Whether as a child or an adult) - This essentially renders any other so called "baptisms" after the fact spiritually meaningless.