Atheist misconceptions of Christianity

[Nick227]

But not the ones where pharmaceutical companies produce medicine that either have no effect or are intentionally designed to kill the less worthy.

It's good to know where the line is.

A company's primary concern is to make profits for its shareholders. This is not a conspiracy. It's laid down in the Articles of Association made on forming a company. Running a pharmaceutical corp your primary concern is to make money, through developing medications. So there's obviously potential for a conflict of interest between developing effective medications and making money.

Anyway, this isn't a thread on pharma. But for me there are two potentially corrupting algorithms running when one looks at medications development - one the need for objective testing and ratification, two the need to make profit.

Nick

 

[Darth Rotor]

Jesus himself said that his reference to eating and drinking his blood were spiritual sayings and not literal.

You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find the Baltimore Chatechism, among others, in disagreement with you. Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed and eaten at Passover, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional. (There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that.

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different. They are chowing down on Jesus, once a week.

DR

 

[Sefarst]

You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find that the Baltimore Chatechism, among others, in disagreement with you. Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional. (There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that.

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different.

DR

Wouldn't the fact that he handed them bread and wine rather than his actual body and blood suggest that he was using it as a metaphor?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wouldn't the fact that he handed them bread and wine rather than his actual body and blood suggest that he was using it as a metaphor?

Taken at face value, yes, and that is why my Methodist friends do as they do. The Catholics, and the Eastern and older (see Armenian and other) churches seem to dig a bit deeper into what Jesus was doing during that Passover meal, and that whole Passover weekend.

This is why I am curious as to Radrook's supporting statement. I don't see Jesus saying "this is symbolic" in my various versions of the Bible, which is what Radrook stated.

Christians have of course been pissing and moaning at one another about this detail for some years, I doubt I'll solve it here. Just want to see Radrook's support for his statement.

DR

 

[Frozenwolf150]

There is no biblical justification for treating or understanding it that way.

Sure, if you ignore the obvious poetic verse Genesis 1 was written in, the literary symmetry of the six days, the merging of two separate traditions describing the creation, or the inclusion of details such as outer space being made of water or plants being able to live without a sun.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Plants are able to live without sun for a day or two, you kno-- oh, wait, the "days" were each thousand years long, I forgot.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different.

First it's good to keep in mind that eating blood was forbidden under the Mosaic Law. Neither were Noah and his descendents ever given permission to eat human flesh or blood.

Genesis 9:3-5

3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat



Deuteronomy 12:16
Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

So Jesus could not have been encouraging the breaking of both the Noachian Covenant nor the Mosaic law while that law was still in effect. That would have been sinful and Jesus is described as morally spotless. So that alone disqualifies the literal interpretation.

Here is the scripture where Jesus tells his disciples that his words are spiritual.

John 6 (King James Version)

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

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

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The folowing scriptuires are also pertinent.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

 

[Pardalis]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

"I only drink the blood of my enemies. And occasionally a stawberry yoohoo. Or a sasparilla. Grenadine, straight from the can. Deeelicious."

 

[Shalamar]

Lots and lots of Bible quotes.

Hmmm.... What other quotes are there?

Oh yes.

BTW
Whipping out a Bible and quoting doesn't constitute a refutation.

But you sure do it a lot, Radrook. Can't practice what you preach?

 

[arthwollipot]

Hmmm.... What other quotes are there?

Oh yes.



But you sure do it a lot, Radrook. Can't practice what you preach?

Fair go, Shalamar. Radrook was specifically asked to provide scriptural justification for a statement that he had made. You can't fault him for providing what was asked of him.

 

[Shalamar]

Fair go, Shalamar. Radrook was specifically asked to provide scriptural justification for a statement that he had made. You can't fault him for providing what was asked of him.

Hmm.. true enough. My bad, and I do apologize, Radrook. I'll try not to jump the gun so much in the future.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot.

Otherwise, he would have merely said, "Bite me!'

 

[Radrook]

You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find the Baltimore Catechism, among others, in disagreement with you.

I am aware that Catholics disagree.

BTW
Origen took Jesus' statements about chopping off body members if they cause one to sin literally and castrated himself. Later he admitted his mistake. That's why the Catholic Church refuses to canonize him.

Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed and eaten at Passover, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional.

Jesus was instituting a ritual top replace the Passover as part of the New Covenant. As the mediator of that Covenant he wasn't required to eat or drink. Especially since he wasn't entering into that covenant as a beneficiary of forgiveness of sins but as the sacrifice making the forgiveness possible.

(There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that....

If Transubstantiation does happen then it should be detectable via the senses. Unfortunately, scientific examination of the bread and wine will reveal that the wine doesn't transform itself into human blood nor the bread into human flesh. So transubstantiation is a claimed miracle that unlike other biblical miracles can never be observed nor detected. Which of course makes it suspect of being an unscriptural figment of the imagination.

 

[six7s]

So transubstantiation is a claimed miracle that unlike other biblical miracles can never be observed nor detected. Which of course makes it suspect of being an unscriptural figment of the imagination.

I think I'm on R's ignore list, so I'll be much obliged if someone else would ask for examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'

 

[arthwollipot]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

 

[Lonewulf]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well.

 

[Agatha]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well.

Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea

 

[Ladewig]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well.

Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea

Is this a private parade or can anyone march along.

. . . . . . . .
ETA: to be fair, that part of the post really struck me as needing some explanation, too.

 

[Radrook]

Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't.


BTW

Since you go out of your way to make asides:

Anyone not liking my ignore modus operandi is as free to place me on the ignore list as I am in placing them on mine. So the playing field is very level here. Neither do I just place anyone on the list. Only those who consistently evade the subject matter and prefer to attack the person or are prone to heckle jeckle and in an effort to get a rise by all means possible. It should be no skin off anyone's nose since the heckler's are free to continue along the same line. The only difference being that I don't see it. Which should be of little importance as long as they can heckle an jeckle to their heart's content.