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.
"
--The latter is symbolic.------------------

"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. "
--Please supply a reference.------------------

"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."
--I do it every single month, your post bares absolutely no resemblance and is even contradictive.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-18-2002]

"In communion you eat+drink the sacrement, the sacrement being the "symbolic" blood and body of jc.How much clearer can it be?."
--I don't disagree with this, and this is different from what you said in this post:

quote:

---

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.

---

--This 'transformation' is false. The ritual is completely symbolic and I'm not eating a persons body nor drinking anyone's body, it is symbolic of an event. Taking part in the ritual constitutes your belief in the veracity of the event and its implications toward humanity.------------------

"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."
--Again, even if you want to call it 'symbolic cannibalism', 'our concerned are refuted by the fact that there is no moral inacceptability since it is entirely subjective.'
--There are no literal implications to communion. Its a reflection on the event of the crucifixion of Christ. Even symbolically we do not 'eat' his flesh. We eat the bread which symbolizes Christs death on the cross. It doesn't symbolize a cannibalistic event or anything of that likeness.------------------

"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."
--Nothing is transferred. The ritual is done not to gain anything, it is done "in rememberence of me[Christ]". No cannibalism, symbolic or not. There is no moral inconsistency here.-------------------

"If there is no link to cannibalism why eat it?."
--Because, taking part in the ritual constitutes your belief in the veracity of the event of Christs crucifixion and its implications toward humanity. Its a 'do this in remembrance of me' thing.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-18-2002]

"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. "
--Your still misunderstanding the fact that you are thinking that there is some sort of 'transfer of power'. There is none, it is done to remember his sacrifice. We do not 'gain' anything directly from doing the ritual. No cannibalism, or even symbolic cannibalism. I'm just reading the words, I'm not filtering it through anything. Jesus said, 'This is my body, this is my blood.' Though even at the time, he made it clear that he was holding bread and a drink, thusly it is symbolic.-------------------

"So you are saying that jc said "remember me by eating this symbolic representation of my flesh and blood".Thats still cannibalistic."
--Though paraphrased, yes that is what I'm saying. It isn't cannibalistic because cannibalism implies eating the flesh or blood, but that is not what your eating and it is symbolic of an event which had nothing to do with eating flesh. There is no cannibalistic nature to the ritual or what it is symbolic of.-------------------

"Can I remember this right? I'll check when I get home tonight...
"And when they had supped, Jesus took bread, and broke it, and said, 'This is my body, which is broken for you. Eat it, all of you, in remembrance of me.'"Sounds pretty cannibalistic, or at least theophagous, to me. The ritual is specifically and explicitly about "eating flesh and drinking blood," and involves a god that was "fully man" as the meal. That's cannibalism. Yes, it's symbolic, unless you're a transsubstantion fan, but that doesn't change Metatron's point."
--Yes it does, because in order for your thoughts on it being 'cannibalistic' to be true, you would have to delete the segment: "Jesus took bread, and broke it" What they are eating is not the flesh nor is it the blood, it doesn't even symbolize it directly. It symbolizes the event of the body being broken and the blood being shed, ie, the crucifixion.-----------------

"And the eating of this stuff of which he said "This is my body" is therefore symbolic of eating a Hostess Ding Dong? You are being almost astoundingly obtuse here. Read the verses. It's freakin' symbolic god-or-human flesh-eating and blood-drinking. "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," to quote one of my unfavorite phrases."
--No It isn't symbolic of eating a hostess ding dong. Because it isn't symbolic of eating, eating it is a symbol of the body being broken and the blood being shed. No sort of cannibalism is here. You have the symbolism reversed, unless of course you can point me to where someone was chowing down on Christ's corpse after he came down from the cross or any other time for that matter.------------------

"People have "symbolically" chowed down on jc "
--No, that isn't what it says.------------------

"Jesus took bread, and broke it, and said, 'This is my body, which is broken for you. Eat it.'Its pretty self explanatory."
--Exactly, so what did they eat? It sounds like bread.------------------

"Why is it eaten?"
--To remmember what Christ did on the cross."Why is it called "Blood and body"?."
--Because it symbolizes the event of Christs body and blood being broken and shed on the cross. It doesn't symbolize anyone eating his body.--Where does the cannibalism come in?------------------