Ritualised cannibalism

South american headhunters believe that by eating the heart of a slain foe they gain his courage.Some christian sects believe that by eating the blood and body of christ they gain his holiness.I can't detect a difference.

Its not symbolic if you actaully believe the rituals the sacrement is "transformed" into JC's blood and body. A devout believer who does not believe in the transformation is not a devout believer.

Then why refer to it as the "blood and body"?.

Its called the blood and body of christ, its then eaten that is cannibalism. The mystic sacrificial rites that accompany the ceremony are ritualistic hence ritualistic cannibalism.The minute variations in wording from one sect to another have no relevance outside those sects, to an outsider its just another odd pagan practice.I still dont see a difference between eating people to gain valour and eating people to gain the approval of a certain god.

COMMUNION:
Ritualized Cannibalism William Edelen--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hanging on the wall of my study is a remarkable map. It is about three feet wide and six feet long. It shows the history of religious evolution starting about 180,000 years ago and ending at the bottom in 1966. The title is "The History Map of Religions." It is in eight colors, with each color representing a flow of mythologies, and concepts, from one religion to another. For instance, if you follow the color "blue," you can see the mythological diffusion, or continuity, from Zoroastrianism and Mithraism into Christianism. It is quite an educational experience to stand in front of the map and study the overall evolution of religions from the 3rd (warm) interglacial period, from the Lower Mousterian Culture of Neanderthal man in Europe to the religious picture of the Earth in 1966.We ask: "Where did it all begin, this behavior that we call religious?" How far back do we go to find the origins of some of our beliefs, like life after death, or the belief in supernatural beings and spirits? Anthropologists think that religious behavior can easily be found in the Neanderthal period of 135,000 years ago. The Neanderthal people buried their dead with great sensitivity and care. Flowers were put into the graves. Artifacts were buried with the dead. Artifacts were either to take with you into another life following death, or to have them for an offering to the gods or goddesses.We ask: "What led them to believe in an afterlife, or supernatural beings?" The answer that I am the most comfortable with is fear and dreams. We all know what fear can do, and when you realize that the Neanderthal people could not possibly have had an explanation for lightning and forest fire, earthquake and storm, thunder and gale, what else would they think but that supernatural beings were behind it all and had to be placated, worshiped and feared?Fear must have played a major part in the development of ideas concerning supernatural beings. For we know that today, even in our own time, it is fear that drives millions to churches and to their knees, either begging or asking the gods for forgiveness of one thing or another. Today, millions live filled with a fear of what is going to happen to them after death. Still today, it is fear that is one of the primary religious motivators of our species, Homo sapiens.As for life-after-death beliefs, I like the dream theory better than any other. We all know how vivid, alive, real and moving dreams can be, to such an extent that when we awaken we are amazed it was a dream. My father died 20 years ago, and yet from time to time, my dreams of him are so sharp and clear it is staggering.What would you think if you were a member of the Neanderthal group, and you knew that you had buried one of your friends long, long ago and yet, last night, in a vivid dream once again you were with him, hunting? He was alive! But how could that be? You buried him many moons ago. Last night he was alive and hunting with you. Why, your friend is not dead at all. He lives on after death in some other place.From such a beginning, thousands and thousands of years ago, there developed and evolved basic ritualistic behavioral patterns, and mythological motifs, or themes, that have spread by a process of diffusion from, at least, the Neanderthal period through Cro-Magnon caves, and into the Christian churches and cathedrals of 20th-century America.One of the more obvious of these is the "sacred meal" or ritualistic cannibalism. We still practice this ritual today in the Protestant and Roman Catholic communion, where we eat the body and drink the blood of the divine leader.The Christian church calls it "communion," or "taking communion." The communicant eats and drinks, symbolically or literally, the flesh and blood of the divine "leader." The traditional invitation to Communion, spoken by the presiding clergy, is this: "Take, eat, this is my body . . . this cup is the new covenant is my blood . . . drink."Eating a body and drinking blood is a cannibalistic theme, no matter how hard the clergy try to water it down, or theo-babble around it by calling it "only symbolic" cannibalism. In the 9th century, the clergy said that God made the flesh of Jesus only look like a wafer so as not to upset the worshipers. They were really cannibals, but they didn't have to face up to it, admit it, or be vividly aware of it.How convenient. History reeks with Theo-babble. ("Theo" God-babble.) One anthropological scholar who has spent a lifetime studying this ritual is Dr. Jean-Paul Dumont, professor of anthropology at the University of Washington. He writes: "Cannibalism has always been a part of religious behavior. The principle is the same . . . acquiring through ingestion the powers of something, whether human or divine. The purpose has always been to take on the qualities of the person being eaten. Through the ritual you share in the divinity of the one being eaten. In our Christian traditions we still practice this cannibalistic ritual in taking Communion."People often ask me, "How could you serve communion when you were a Congregational minister, knowing it was a cannibalistic ritual?" My answer: "I never did use the cannibalistic words or invitation, and the congregations loved my honesty."I spoke only of the joy of breaking bread together and drinking wine, which has for thousands of years been a way to celebrate life. Bread has been a symbol of strength, and wine for life and wisdom. Says the Hebrew Qabbalah, "It is the symbol for the mysterious vitality and spiritual energy of all created things."There is a beautiful teaching in Judaism that says Abraham went to see his great-grandfather Shem, and Shem gave him bread and wine. Shem's message to Abraham was that if you want to turn the world to God, you have to give them bread and wine; the old must be connected to the new and fresh and vital. Bread is best when it is fresh. With wine, the older it is, the more beautiful it is.When bread is broken and wine is drunk around a table of joy, there is a glorious communion of kindred spirits, whether Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, Hebrew, American Indian, Hindu, Agnostic, Humanist, Atheist or Deist, Druid or Pantheist.There is a communion of more than our bodies.For those who cling to the archaic cannibalistic theme, I would remind them of the Christian tragedy, never better expressed than by Samuel Driver, when he was a professor of Hebrew at Oxford University:Nothing is more tragic in Christianity than the fact that Communion has for centuries been, and still is, a subject for the most intense hatred and fighting. Christians have been put to death, cruel deaths, by other Christians for not believing the same doctrines about the Lord's Supper, which cannot be proved, and are not even true. It became a sacrament of hate and destruction, because men have claimed they possessed knowledge which cannot be possessed.For those who still believe they are eating a body and drinking blood, they are, quite honestly, cannibals, whether symbolic or literal.

So you say that its only symbolic ritual cannibalism.
..........
you were told what it meant... it symbolizes Christ's body, broken for us, and his blood, shed for us, and is done in remembrance of him... of his sacrifice
..........
If its not cannibalism why eat it?. Put it on top of your holy table or smear it on the head wizards hat or something. But the instant you eat it, its just another group of primitives who believe they gain power by consuming flesh.I have a moral problem with cannibalism (symbolic or otherwise) except in certain survival situations.[This message has been edited by Metatron, 12-18-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"I have a moral problem with cannibalism (symbolic or otherwise) except in certain survival situations. "
--Even if you do want to describe it as 'ritualised cannibalism' your conserned are refuted by the fact that there is no moral inacceptability since it is entirely subjective. 'In certain survival situations' what is a subjective form of symbolism going to have anything to do with the 'survival' of anything?
--Partaking in the ritual does not constitute eating his body or drinking his blood literally.
--I'd still like that reference.Attend communion.

In communion you eat+drink the sacrement, the sacrement being the "symbolic" blood and body of jc.How much clearer can it be?.

But that still means you take part in symbolic cannibalism. The fact that I'm no longer contesting the symbolic bit proves you've gained some ground.But the main reason I'm not contesting the symbolic bit is because I have no faith in the effectiveness of the ritual of transmutation or whatever its called.

The theory behind the ritual is that power in this case holiness is transferred from the eatee to the eater. Ignore the phrases that accompany it and simply observe the ritual itself. The symbolic flesh of jc or the real flesh of another tribesman, the belief system is no different.[This message has been edited by Metatron, 12-18-2002]

If there is no link to cannibalism why eat it?.

My whole point centres around the eating, without the eating the ritual means nothing. The action of eating brings you closer to your god (or gods), or transfers power to the eater. The "used to remember him by" bit is nothing more than part of the mystic writings that accompany the ritual. And the ritual itself is about growing closer to your deity of choice through consuming in this case the symbolic flesh and blood of one of the probably mythological characters who appears in a (badly translated and inaccurate) book.I look at the ritual through an atheists eye's, not via the filter of religious programming. Its no more or less valid to me than the spinning of a prayer wheel or the shaking of knuckle bones by a witch doctor to drive out evil spirits.But, drape as much expensive cloth on the alter and spout all the sermons you want the sacrificial offering is the symbolic flesh and blood of a man (who might have existed).

You're right "you are what you eat" is a very common phrase. A worrying one as well if you're eating habits are as bad as mine. For instance we get fed a lot corned beef in the ccokhouse which we invariably refer to as "smashed monkey", spam is also known as "pink death".The disposal of the extra sacrement via priests I find to be honest very similar to guarding nail parings, hair, excrement and such from the prying hands of voodoo magicians.

So you are saying that jc said "remember me by eating this symbolic representation of my flesh and blood".Thats still cannibalistic.

People have "symbolically" chowed down on jc during every ritual of communion ever carried out.Its just a hang on from a more barbaric age.