Huh? Baptism is a symbolic cleansing, a washing away of sin. How is it symbolic drowning?
A cursory Google search shows tons and tons of Christian sources claiming that it is a symbolic death and rebirth (born again). Obviously people are going to disagree but it’s definitely a common enough interpretation.
I guess I never assumed that the rebirth implied a death.
So basically Jesus said…“EAT ME”
Cannibalism refers to the eating of your own species. Yes, Jesus was a person, but Christians believe He was/is also a deity. Eating His flesh, either symbolically or literally, is not cannibalism because humans are not divine. Well, not religiously divine anyway.
On a separate note, cannibalism has negative connotations. Surely you know that. If this is your wife’s religion, I suggest you take religion off the list of topics to “discuss.”
I’m not sure why anyone thinks this is a problem - if it is symbolic cannibalism (and I’m not fully convinced it is), it doesn’t imply that real cannibalism is considered acceptable.
When I want someone to stop something (for example, turning off a water supply or cutting the background music at an event), I signal this by making a side to side motion with my hand under my chin - Symbolically cutting my throat. This doesn’t mean I actually want to cut my throat.
Although it does make me wonder if anyone has ever seriously proposed ‘The disciples ate it’ as a solution to the question of where Jesus’ body went.
Giving rise to the tradition of having a buffet at the Wake.
Moved MPSIMS --> Great Debates.
Take a look at full-immersion baptism among some of the Protestant denominations.
I appreciate the debate aspects here, but now that we’re in Great Debates let’s keep the jokes to a minimum, people.
Romans 6:2-4 is the passage that points to baptism as a symbolic death - not necessarily by drowning, that is extrapolation from what happens in baptism. It is a prominent theme in the Lutheran theology of baptism.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a pretty good explanation of how it might not be proper to refer to it as symbolic cannibalism. But, in context, with Jesus sitting with his disciples, at the time they pretty clearly viewed him as a man. So, I think, in context, however you slice it (no pun intended), it could be called symbolic cannibalism. Even though later he rose and ascended and all. And either way, it’s damn close. Jesus was man and divine and that was pretty much the whole point from his virgin birth on.
And whether anyone finds it insulting or not it’s still symbolic cannibalism in my book. Like Mangetout said, I don’t understand why it’s a problem to describe something as it is. But, me and my wife don’t talk about it anymore, I just consider it her “blind spot” and leave it at that.
I’ll go with baptism as a symbolic death/rebirth (so, drowning applies).
The Eucharist is not symbolic, to Catholics (it is to some other Christian faiths though). As Flannery O’Connor said, “if it’s a metaphor, the hell with it.”
You are eating God, so I don’t think the term cannibalism applies.
So, not symbolic, not cannibalism.
The Eucharist is definitely NOT cannibalism. The Eucharist is to cannibalism what marriage is to fornication or worship is to idolatry. The latter is the perversion of the former. So saying catholics engage in symbolic cannibalism is like saying the US Mint engages in symbolic counterfeiting - not so at all.
I thought cannibalism was defined as eating human flesh. Do you have another definition in mind?
If you believe Jesus was God at the time of the Last Supper, then, yeah, maybe it wasn’t “symbolic cannibalism” and they were “eating God” (if that’s something you’re into). But, your analogies don’t make much sense to me.
So, what would you call an act where someone gave you a piece of bread and said ,“pretend this is me and eat it” if not symbolic cannibalism. . . maybe, “pretending to eat somebody?”
Counterfeiting is making fake money; minting is making real money that has the power to buy real stuff. Similarly, cannibalism is eating dead flesh; the eucharist is eating living flesh that has the power to impart a share in the life of god.
And Jesus didn’t say, “Pretend this is my body.” He said, “This is my body.” Note the lack of symbolism there - it’s a simple declaration of fact.
Cannibalism is eating the flesh of your own species and has nothing to do with whether it is alive or dead. And any comparison of counterfeiting to cannibalism is just a poor analogy in my opinion.
So, if they were eating Jesus’ actual living flesh, you’re saying, as has been stated above in this thread, that it WAS actual cannibalism. OK. Or, you believe that they were eating the flesh of God. I think either are reasonable explanations of how it was not symbolic cannibalism.