Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Because, I bet, if you throw up after taking communion you won't be throwing up blood and flesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 And, also, the Bible says that consuming blood is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTMCassandra Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I'm really enjoying this thoughtful discussion. Thanks to all for wise words! I too have pondered the connection between literal/figurative views of creation, communion, and last days. I am literal on the first and last of those, and I was brought up figurative on the middle one. LOL. But I know some people who are literal on the first and figurative on the last two, or figurative on the first and last but literal on the middle one. The irony of this has not escaped me, that even I am not consistently literal or figurative. I have been contemplating a literal view of communion, but I'm not quite there, and I'm not sure I ever will be. But as others have pointed out, where issues are this difficult and sticky, Christian charity must trump all. And pondering these issues has made me less dogmatic and more accepting of others who believe differently from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
susankenny Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I also wanted to clarify, for the YE people, that many OE people do believe the Bible was written/inspired by God, that it is Truth. I believe that God gave us the story of Genesis to explain VERY important concepts, including Sin. But that perhaps he worded it this way so that we would understand it, because trying to explain the Big Bang in terms of modern physics would have been more than we could comprehend at the time. I thank him greatly for giving me something I could actually understand, as physics will always be beyond my grasp :) I absolutely agree with you, and I do understand that those who hold an old earth perspective certainly can hold miraculous signs and wonders of equal importance. That really isn't an issue for me whatsoever. Adam & Eve (for me only, it was personal to figure them out) however, must be literal, otherwise I find none of the Bible making any sense. It discounts the geneaology of all those that follow. For *me* it makes the rest of the Bible nonsense too. For example, if they are only allegorical, than sin did not really enter through Adam, & thus, there is no need for a Savior (as I believe sin is not a behavior but a genetic disposition as well that was passed down through Adam). Adam & Eve in particular have held my attention for many months, as I felt it was necessary to have an opinion on them. For *myself*, salvation is hinged on whether or not they actually existed & my faith is literally changed with my belief in what they represent, so I needed to reconcile a solid opinion within myself. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) But as others have pointed out, where issues are this difficult and sticky, Christian charity must trump all. And pondering these issues has made me less dogmatic and more accepting of others who believe differently from me. ITA. The following is a good article about this: We Believe the Bible and You Do Not Edited April 6, 2011 by dmmosher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary in VA Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 But as others have pointed out, where issues are this difficult and sticky, Christian charity must trump all. And pondering these issues has made me less dogmatic and more accepting of others who believe differently from me. :iagree:Absolutely!!! I am YE and have agreed with Ken Ham in the past. We have lots of his products and have been to the Creation Museum. I have been so disappointed and disheartened by his actions in the past few weeks regarding Dr Enns and SWB. I have read most of the threads on this issue, read Dr. Jay Wile's blog entry on it, and ALL of the comments on Dr. Wile's blog (There are over 600!) I have come away from it all with a different perspective. Like you I believe I am now less dogmatic and more accepting. While I don't agree with Dr. Enns' theology, Dr. Wile's explanation has led me to understand why Dr. Enns believes as he does and it is not unbiblical. It saddens me that Ken Ham can attack and try to undermine the life works of both Dr. Enns and SWB over things that are NOT FOUNDATIONAL to the Christian faith!!! :grouphug: to SWB. I am so sorry you are having to go through this. I know the Lord has a greater purpose in this for you, but it stinks right now! Mary ETA: Sorry to the OP, I kind of went OT! I have just been mulling all this over and had to get it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary in VA Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 ITA. The following is a good article about this: We Believe the Bible and You Do Not Thank you for that link! The article was great! Mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kchara Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 ITA. The following is a good article about this: We Believe the Bible and You Do Not Very good article. Thanks for sharing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 I agree that the level of freedom is similar. That's one of the reasons that I reject both the idea of the millenia-long days AND the strictly a memorial view of the Lord's Supper. At least I'm consistent... And I really respect that!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Because, I bet, if you throw up after taking communion you won't be throwing up blood and flesh. So in other words, you don't read it literally because your experience or reason tells you it doesn't make sense. The same way that some OE people feel that the Genesis account doesn't make sense. how is that different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Thank you for the link!!!!! That is it exactly!!!! I'm so tired of being told I "don't believe in the Bible" when I have a different understanding of it. My point with this thread was to point out that we all have different levels of what we read literally and not, and that we need to be gracious to those that read it differently rather than just say "well, I believe and you don't." The article said it better than I could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 So in other words, you don't read it literally because your experience or reason tells you it doesn't make sense. The same way that some OE people feel that the Genesis account doesn't make sense. how is that different? It's different because it's very simple to test. It doesn't rely on my intellectual ideas of what makes sense. If you throw up after communion or you put a scope down into your stomach, or whatever, it is blood and flesh or not? We weren't around for the creation of the earth. We can't find out what exactly the Bible passages mean. We can debate and think and wonder, but it comes down to the fact that we weren't there. God did what He did, and whichever He did doesn't make a bit of difference in our salvation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It's different because it's very simple to test. It doesn't rely on my intellectual ideas of what makes sense. If you throw up after communion or you put a scope down into your stomach, or whatever, it is blood and flesh or not? We weren't around for the creation of the earth. We can't find out what exactly the Bible passages mean. We can debate and think and wonder, but it comes down to the fact that we weren't there. God did what He did, and whichever He did doesn't make a bit of difference in our salvation. But that's not ever the teaching of the Real Presence by any Christian church I know of that holds to it. The teaching is that through some means and to some extent (and I won't elaborate WHAT means or extent as that is where some nuances of dispute are) we receive Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. It doesn't mean that we see flesh and blood, but that they are there. It's different from what you're talking about, where there would be some observable material transformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Oh! And about the blood and body thing. In the OT, it was forbidden to consume the blood or fat of an animal. The blood was the life of the animal; hence, you take on/consume/inject the "life" of another creature. When Jesus was saying the wine was his blood, he was saying that his blood gave life (spiritually speaking) and that for them to have life, they needed to drink his blood. Meaning, real, true eternal life was through Jesus. The idea of drinking blood was so abhorrent, many couldn't deal with the concept or didn't get what he was saying, and many left. Wow, I know that your quotes are true, but I have never related them that way before. Lots to think about there, but I like it! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 But that's not ever the teaching of the Real Presence by any Christian church I know of that holds to it. The teaching is that through some means and to some extent (and I won't elaborate WHAT means or extent as that is where some nuances of dispute are) we receive Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. It doesn't mean that we see flesh and blood, but that they are there. It's different from what you're talking about, where there would be some observable material transformation. My understanding is that in denominations that take Christ's words to be extremely literal as opposed to meaning this bread *represents* My flesh and this wine *represents* My blood, is that it actually *literally* turns into flesh and blood. That is so easily testable that it shouldn't ever be under debate. Anyone who takes it to mean anything other than an actual physical transformation is taking it to mean a representation, not the literal material consumption of flesh and blood. If both sides don't mean that it actually turns into flesh and blood, then both sides are in agreement and there is no debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 My understanding is that in denominations that take Christ's words to be extremely literal as opposed to meaning this bread *represents* My flesh and this wine *represents* My blood, is that it actually *literally* turns into flesh and blood. That is so easily testable that it shouldn't ever be under debate. Anyone who takes it to mean anything other than an actual physical transformation is taking it to mean a representation, not the literal material consumption of flesh and blood. If both sides don't mean that it actually turns into flesh and blood, then both sides are in agreement and there is no debate. No, I disagree with you. You're presenting a false choice. It's not 'represents' vs. 'actual physical'. And the sides are not in agreement at all. It's 'represents' vs. 'Real Presence'--that is different. So, what is the Real Presence? There is some disagreement about that, but our church teaches that we receive the actual body and blood of Christ 'in, with, and under' the bread and wine, which are the visible elements. If you read I Cor. where Paul talks about the Sacrament having actual power, it is difficult to say that it's just a representation, in my opinion. I don't want to argue about what is the correct teaching here, but rather to explain these views clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 My understanding is that in denominations that take Christ's words to be extremely literal as opposed to meaning this bread *represents* My flesh and this wine *represents* My blood, is that it actually *literally* turns into flesh and blood. That is so easily testable that it shouldn't ever be under debate. Anyone who takes it to mean anything other than an actual physical transformation is taking it to mean a representation, not the literal material consumption of flesh and blood. If both sides don't mean that it actually turns into flesh and blood, then both sides are in agreement and there is no debate. But if your reason for not reading it literally is that the "evidence" says it isn't true, then isn't that the very thing that YE like Ken Ham have been accusing us OE of doing? Changing how you interpret it based on science or reason, rather than faith? And for the record, the churches that hold a literal interpretation don't say that it looks or feels or tastes like flesh/blood. Just that it IS somehow flesh/blood, wether coexisting with the wine or replacing it entirely depends on what denomination you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 No, I disagree with you. You're presenting a false choice. It's not 'represents' vs. 'actual physical'. And the sides are not in agreement at all. It's 'represents' vs. 'Real Presence'--that is different. So, what is the Real Presence? There is some disagreement about that, but our church teaches that we receive the actual body and blood of Christ 'in, with, and under' the bread and wine, which are the visible elements. If you read I Cor. where Paul talks about the Sacrament having actual power, it is difficult to say that it's just a representation, in my opinion. I don't want to argue about what is the correct teaching here, but rather to explain these views clearly. Okay, what does "power" have to do with the bread and wine turning into real flesh and blood? Do you really think that if the ceremony were purely spiritual it wouldn't hold any power? Some people do in fact believe that they are actually consuming Jesus's flesh and blood. As I said before, that is extremely easy to test. Simple. What does "in, with, and under" mean? That makes so sense to me. There is blood and flesh in the bread and wine, and with it, too? As is near?... next?... to it? And then there is flesh and blood under the bread and wine as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Okay, what does "power" have to do with the bread and wine turning into real flesh and blood? Do you really think that if the ceremony were purely spiritual it wouldn't hold any power? Some people do in fact believe that they are actually consuming Jesus's flesh and blood. As I said before, that is extremely easy to test. Simple. What does "in, with, and under" mean? That makes so sense to me. There is blood and flesh in the bread and wine, and with it, too? As is near?... next?... to it? And then there is flesh and blood under the bread and wine as well? I think that this conversation is getting really contentious, and that is not what I want. I'm getting uncomfortable with continuing to participate as it has that appearance. Please, let's take it down a little. In answer to your first question, no, I think that if the ceremony were purely a representation, it would not hold any power. Like a statue of something powerful doesn't have any power. Your second paragraph does not represent my church or any church that I know of--not the Catholic or Orthodox churches, for instance. By the way, the repeated references to throwing up are making me cringe. It's extremely uncomfortable as it feels tremendously irreverent to me. I know you don't mean it that way, but please realize that it's very, VERY hard to hear. "In, with, and under" means that when you receive the bread and wine you are also receiving Christ's body and blood, because He said so. Edited April 6, 2011 by Carol in Cal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah C. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 What does "in, with, and under" mean? That makes so sense to me. There is blood and flesh in the bread and wine, and with it, too? As is near?... next?... to it? And then there is flesh and blood under the bread and wine as well? The terminology probably has to do with/stems from ancient philosophical ideas such as form, matter, substance. Today these ideas seem rather nonsensical because they do not correspond to modern science. However if the ideas are seen in context they do make sense. :001_smile: That is, if you read philosophy the arguments are internally consistent and logical, regardless of how they relate to the modern world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Okay, what does "power" have to do with the bread and wine turning into real flesh and blood? Do you really think that if the ceremony were purely spiritual it wouldn't hold any power? Some people do in fact believe that they are actually consuming Jesus's flesh and blood. As I said before, that is extremely easy to test. Simple. What does "in, with, and under" mean? That makes so sense to me. There is blood and flesh in the bread and wine, and with it, too? As is near?... next?... to it? And then there is flesh and blood under the bread and wine as well? If we (Christians) need the Bible to "make sense" then we are in a boatload of trouble.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 But if your reason for not reading it literally is that the "evidence" says it isn't true, then isn't that the very thing that YE like Ken Ham have been accusing us OE of doing? Changing how you interpret it based on science or reason, rather than faith? And for the record, the churches that hold a literal interpretation don't say that it looks or feels or tastes like flesh/blood. Just that it IS somehow flesh/blood, wether coexisting with the wine or replacing it entirely depends on what denomination you mean. First of all, reality and truth to me are the same thing. Science and faith, to me, are not at all incompatible. I do think there are many, many things that science doesn't fully understand yet. Faith to me isn't some wishywashy something that I believe in my heart that is at odds with reality, and therefore incompatible with science. Science, as done by man, is fallible because it is conducted by imperfect creatures and interpreted by imperfect creatures. I don't live in two separate realities like many people who separate science and faith. Something is real and true, or it is not. And we are capable of testing certain things and we are incapable of testing others. God, being perfectly capable of turning bread and wine into flesh and blood, either does so or He does not. It's very simple. And then we can look at it and see if he does. *That* is one area where we are actually capable of thorough testing. Bigger and deeper things regarding how the universe works are a bit more unreachable by science at this point and time, regardless of what modern scientists want to think. Theories like the Big Bang and evolution are nice ideas that fit a lot of facts, but have their flaws as well. If there is blood coexisting with wine or totally replacing it, we can test that! It's that simple. Whether it happens or not doesn't affect whether there is great power and meaning surrounding communion. God isn't weak like that. He can put power and meaning into whatever He wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If we (Christians) need the Bible to "make sense" then we are in a boatload of trouble.;) It makes sense to me. God is actually quite logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The terminology probably has to do with/stems from ancient philosophical ideas such as form, matter, substance. Today these ideas seem rather nonsensical because they do not correspond to modern science. However if the ideas are seen in context they do make sense. :001_smile: That is, if you read philosophy the arguments are internally consistent and logical, regardless of how they relate to the modern world. Right now, I am able to bridge this by thinking of it as a "miracle" everytime! I think of the eucharist as a place where heaven is presently touching earth and God can do as He likes :D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It makes sense to me. God is actually quite logical. Yes, but He is not a tame lion. It's unreasonable to test Him. In fact, it's irreverent. It's reasonable to test spirits and see if they are from Him. It's reasonable and wise to try to figure out what He means by what He says, and I think that that is what you are doing. Just be a little careful not to take it to the extreme of putting Him into a box--He won't stay there; that I can say for sure. And be careful to always keep in mind that He is God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Your second paragraph does not represent my church or any church that I know of--not the Catholic or Orthodox churches, for instance. By the way, the repeated references to throwing up are making me cringe. It's extremely uncomfortable as it feels tremendously irreverent to me. I know you don't mean it that way, but please realize that it's very, VERY hard to hea I get a lot of ulcers and when they bleed I throw up. Sorry. That's why there is a connection to me. Blood in the stomach creates sufficient nausea in most people to induce vomiting. I know that and experience it quite frequently. It's not meant to upset anyone. It's just a normal physiological reaction. That leads me to think that somewhere at some point someone must have gotten nauseated, perhaps from the flu or whatever, shortly after communion. What came out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It makes sense to me. God is actually quite logical. But it doesn't make provable, scientific sense at all. Waters parting, dead being raised, ya know? You want to "prove" it - I would argue that is not something we can or should do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah C. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Did a Google search for Eucharistic miracles. Here's what I found: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031 ETA: I have no opinion on whether the stories are true. :001_smile: Edited April 6, 2011 by Hannah C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 First of all, reality and truth to me are the same thing. Science and faith, to me, are not at all incompatible. I do think there are many, many things that science doesn't fully understand yet. Faith to me isn't some wishywashy something that I believe in my heart that is at odds with reality, and therefore incompatible with science. Science, as done by man, is fallible because it is conducted by imperfect creatures and interpreted by imperfect creatures. I don't live in two separate realities like many people who separate science and faith. Something is real and true, or it is not. And we are capable of testing certain things and we are incapable of testing others. I agree with all of this except your first sentence. I would say that reality is a subset of truth. I would also say that we would be foolish/presumptuous to test God where He does not ask us to do so. God, being perfectly capable of turning bread and wine into flesh and blood, either does so or He does not. It's very simple. No, it's not simple like that. Several of us have explained that. That's not the teaching of any church I know of. Yes, He could make a physical transformation. The fact that He doesn't is irrelevant to the doctrine of the Real Presence, because it's not what it asserts. If there is blood coexisting with wine or totally replacing it, we can test that! It's that simple. No, we can't test that. It's not asserted by ANYONE that it's that kind of coexistence. You're arguing with a straw man that you have set up yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Yes, but He is not a tame lion. It's unreasonable to test Him. In fact, it's irreverent. It's reasonable to test spirits and see if they are from Him. It's reasonable and wise to try to figure out what He means by what He says, and I think that that is what you are doing. Just be a little careful not to take it to the extreme of putting Him into a box--He won't stay there; that I can say for sure. And be careful to always keep in mind that He is God. When Moses parted the waters, Moses parted the waters. It wasn't some sort of fuzzy, spiritual, not observable thing. Water got up and parted. When God made manna, there was touchable, edible foodstuff on the ground. etc., etc. If God makes bread and wine into flesh and blood, there will be, gosh, flesh and blood there. God isn't a fuzzy, sort-of kind-of, maybe, wishywashy thing. God is God. If God does something then it is really, really done. Not done sort of in my faith, and in my heart, and in my spiritual understanding of "reality" outside of Reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Right now, I am able to bridge this by thinking of it as a "miracle" everytime! I think of the eucharist as a place where heaven is presently touching earth and God can do as He likes :D. Lovely, Simka! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 First of all, reality and truth to me are the same thing. Science and faith, to me, are not at all incompatible. I do think there are many, many things that science doesn't fully understand yet. Faith to me isn't some wishywashy something that I believe in my heart that is at odds with reality, and therefore incompatible with science. Science, as done by man, is fallible because it is conducted by imperfect creatures and interpreted by imperfect creatures. I don't live in two separate realities like many people who separate science and faith. Something is real and true, or it is not. And we are capable of testing certain things and we are incapable of testing others. God, being perfectly capable of turning bread and wine into flesh and blood, either does so or He does not. It's very simple. And then we can look at it and see if he does. *That* is one area where we are actually capable of thorough testing. Bigger and deeper things regarding how the universe works are a bit more unreachable by science at this point and time, regardless of what modern scientists want to think. Theories like the Big Bang and evolution are nice ideas that fit a lot of facts, but have their flaws as well. If there is blood coexisting with wine or totally replacing it, we can test that! It's that simple. Whether it happens or not doesn't affect whether there is great power and meaning surrounding communion. God isn't weak like that. He can put power and meaning into whatever He wants. It is not something provable by science, that is what makes it so special. I don't think you understand the Catholic/Orthodox/Episcopal/Lutheran standpoint on this. We believe it because God said it. Just like many believe in a YE because God said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It is not something provable by science, that is what makes it so special. I don't think you understand the Catholic/Orthodox/Episcopal/Lutheran standpoint on this. We believe it because God said it. Just like many believe in a YE because God said it. That doesn't make it special at all. Miracles are special because they are from God. Anything from God is special. When God steps in and does something, it is special. And when God steps in and does something, he actually does it. In the same way that we would have been able to bend down and grab some manna and eat it, we would be able to detect blood and flesh in what we've just eaten at communion, even in microscopic amounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I stopped reading at the first page. (in terms of theology and study methods, and so on--I've forgotten the majority of the terminology I knew 20+ years ago--so now my faith is once again more focused to what I can remmember, and therefore more childlike ;) ), so I may be going where angels fear to tread, but from a common sense, layperson POV, when Jesus broke the bread and poured the wine, the passage tells us that those *foods* are what He used and shared with those at the dinner table. It doesn't tell us that He performed a miracle and transformed the food into His body and blood, in a similar manner to the wedding of Cana. For many of us, then, a common sense reading then would be that He was speaking in metaphor when He said that they were His body and blood. While we believe the Scriptures to be literally true, like this passage, there are many passages in which reasonable interpretation would say that the passage could include a metaphor or other figure of speech. There are many things in Scripture that are difficult for us to hear, particularly the places in which God chooses to present the unvarnished, bad choices and abysmal actions of those whom He chose to work through, even though they were very flawed people. I choose to believe those passages literally as well, all things being equal. God is truthful, merciful, and Sovereign enough to bring His plan for us into being, even though we behave so badly at times. :iagree:1 Corinthians 11:23-28 says that the cup is the covenant. Luke 22:17-20 calls the contents of the cup the "product of the vine". The only problem with this view ( a view I have held in the past) is that if it was "common sense" why did so many stop following Jesus as a result? Why was it deemed a "hard or difficult" saying? What's so difficult about a metaphor? Moreover, why were so many martyrs willing to die over it. That is where it gets a bit sticky :001_smile:. Jesus commanded us to perform the Lord's Evening Meal. It is a commandment whether the cup contains actual wine or actual blood. (Oh, but I also think that the term day is not necessarily 24 hours. According to the language surrounding the term in Genesis and the language in the rest of the Bible, it looks to me like it means either 12 hours or an undisclosed period of time. I think, however, that most OE views take too many liberties on the whole story, not just the one word.) Edited April 6, 2011 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The terminology probably has to do with/stems from ancient philosophical ideas such as form, matter, substance. Today these ideas seem rather nonsensical because they do not correspond to modern science. However if the ideas are seen in context they do make sense. :001_smile: That is, if you read philosophy the arguments are internally consistent and logical, regardless of how they relate to the modern world. Right now, I am able to bridge this by thinking of it as a "miracle" everytime! I think of the eucharist as a place where heaven is presently touching earth and God can do as He likes :D. Very nice! Thanks guys, these made my day! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) . When God steps in and does something, it is special. And when God steps in and does something, he actually does it. In the same way that we would have been able to bend down and grab some manna and eat it, we would be able to detect blood and flesh in what we've just eaten at communion, even in microscopic amounts. Not necessarily. God can do things in other ways, too. God has changed my heart and inclined my soul toward Him. I couldn't do that myself, and it's not observable, but it's entirely real. I'll bet you could think of things like that, too. Let's not box in God. Edited April 6, 2011 by Carol in Cal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I get a lot of ulcers and when they bleed I throw up. Sorry. That's why there is a connection to me. Blood in the stomach creates sufficient nausea in most people to induce vomiting. I know that and experience it quite frequently. It's not meant to upset anyone. It's just a normal physiological reaction. That leads me to think that somewhere at some point someone must have gotten nauseated, perhaps from the flu or whatever, shortly after communion. What came out? But the fact is, it DOES upset me, and I'm sure, others here. I've pointed this out to you gently and you refuse to respect that. That doesn't seem very charitable to me. It's certainly not conducive to mutually respectful conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah C. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Very nice! Thanks guys, these made my day! :lol: Now I'm wondering what you meant...:001_unsure: I think I may have phrased things wrong! Oh well...:001_smile: I wasn't trying to state an opinion on the Real Presence or lack thereof; just saying that imho the philosophical arguments are internally consistent and fit in their original context, even though they don't really make sense when put in the modern scientific world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It makes sense to me. God is actually quite logical. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 That doesn't make it special at all. Miracles are special because they are from God. Anything from God is special. When God steps in and does something, it is special. And when God steps in and does something, he actually does it. In the same way that we would have been able to bend down and grab some manna and eat it, we would be able to detect blood and flesh in what we've just eaten at communion, even in microscopic amounts. And you know this how? God does whatever he wants to do. If he wanted the bread and wine to transform while still having the form of bread and wine, there is nothing stopping him from doing so. And respectfully, I don't think that you, or any of us, know Him well enough to say how he would do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Isn't there a quote somewhere that says that the only thing we know about God is that if we think we understand it, it isn't God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Now I'm wondering what you meant...:001_unsure: I think I may have phrased things wrong! Oh well...:001_smile: I wasn't trying to state an opinion on the Real Presence or lack thereof; just saying that imho the philosophical arguments are internally consistent and fit in their original context, even though they don't really make sense when put in the modern scientific world. No, no, you were very clear. Sorry, the way I paired those made it confusing. I enjoyed them both, but not because they were necessarily related to one another. I made no assumptions about your POV. I just enjoyed someone noting that aspect of logic. But I am weird like that, so thanks again! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 No, no, you were very clear. Sorry, the way I paired those made it confusing. I enjoyed them both, but not because they were necessarily related to one another. I made no assumptions about your POV. I just enjoyed someone noting that aspect of logic. But I am weird like that, so thanks again! :001_smile: :iagree:but I am not feeling well so it was difficult to explain. I liked your logic, but I also allow for God to do what He wants ;). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Wow, I know that your quotes are true, but I have never related them that way before. Lots to think about there, but I like it! Thank you! It was a connection I'd never made before recently, too. My pastor said this and I'll have to go back and ask him which sermon he said it in, to gain context. We're studying the OT this year, so we're getting lots of OT cultural info that explains some of how and why Jesus said things the way he did, and why people responded to him as they did. It helps to know where people were culturally in the OT to sort of get a grasp on how radical Jesus was to them. It's been very interesting, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I guess I'm thinking in my always weird ways about this and imagining a God of the Universe who IS present with us in spirit at all times. Spirit is made of something (I think). Plasma? Energy? We just don't know; but something.... If everything is made of atoms - and if atoms are made of smaller and smaller things (quarks, leptons, neutrinos, etc., etc.), things we still don't understand, then why wouldn't we imagine that the God who is with us always is present in one of our most sacred ways of communing with him? I'm not talking about God becoming flesh and blood. I'm talking about God being made of the same something that is part and parcel of what those elements are made of.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I grew up largely under fundamentalist views and always believed in YE / the body and blood being only symbolic. We are converting to Catholicism this month and I now cannot believe that anyone could believe, after reading Jesus' words, that he meant anything other than a literal transformation of the bread and wine. I think the problem comes when we interpret the Bible for ourselves, I don't think we were ever meant to do that. For the first 1500+ years of Christianity, most people could not even read let alone own their own Bible since they were so rare and valuable. So depending on our own interpretation of the Bible as the bedrock of our faith is a radical modern movement and completely illogical, IMO. I also don't care nearly as much anymore how old the earth is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) But the fact is, it DOES upset me, and I'm sure, others here. I've pointed this out to you gently and you refuse to respect that. That doesn't seem very charitable to me. It's certainly not conducive to mutually respectful conversation. :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: Edited April 6, 2011 by unsinkable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan in TN Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Ok, first of all, i totally respect any/all opinions on Genesis, OE/YE, etc. I am just curious about something, and after wanting to ask multiple times I'm going to just do it. Please don't think I'm being snarky. If the big issue with Ham kerfluffle is that you have to believe ALL of the Bible literally, then why do these same people not believe in the literal "body and blood" of communion? Why is it ok to read that in a figurative sense, but not other parts of the Bible? :bigear: To interpret the Bible "literally" means to interpret the writing according to the type of "literature" that it falls under. There are many, many kinds of writing in the Bible - history, wisdom, poetry, etc. And many books contain more than one type. Haven't read the entire thread so sorry if this has been repeated ad nauseum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I guess I'm thinking in my always weird ways about this and imagining a God of the Universe who IS present with us in spirit at all times. Spirit is made of something (I think). Plasma? Energy? We just don't know; but something.... “Where there are two or three met together in my name, there I am in their midst.†(Matt. 18:20) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulLife Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I vote for a completely literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, LOL..... ducking.... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.